BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
no punishment before fetal pain, moderate punishment then till viability, murder after viability

at best con says it's uncertain when fetal pain develops. and must resort to con's point of deferring to giving choice to the mother. but why not defer to the issue of pain? con acts as if it's established that pain doesn't occur until or after viablity... but all my info casts real significant doubt on that. plus it's common sense that a baby doesn't just have no pain and be unable to live on its on, then suddently in one moment has pain and can live on its own. that is ridicularous.. con should at least admit that he's okay with causing pain in babies before viability or at least using pain killers.... he's willing to overlook the fact that it could be said to be inhumane to begin with if you have to use pain killers to kill a baby humanely. con gives a lot of evidence for hwen pain might be felt. but that's just evidence contrary to mine. and it overlooks, as i quoted, that it's not so much about whether the fetus feels pan, it's about how that pain is perceived etc. if there's no conciousness there can still be pain, just like ameobas and lower lifeforms feel pain but are not conscious. con seems to be tacitly admitting that when the fetus feels pain does change things given how much con doesn't just say 'it's irrelevant when it feels pain'. con just seems to be in lala land where that point magically coincides with viability or after. given con is clearly the one engaging in magic and smoke and mirrors making it seem like there is no pain and all prior to viability and then suddently there is.... what con said is actually more applicable to con... "We can not just pick and choose which side we want to believe regardless of the evidence, simply because it supports how we feel about abortion as a whole. We 'ought' to be better than that."
no punishment before fetal pain, moderate punishment then till viability, murder after viability

con argues constitutional rights, but clearly this debate is about how things 'ought' to be, so constitution means little. this is info that fetus can feel pain at twenty weeks http://www.mccl.org... this article puts pain at as early as sixteen weeks http://thefederalist.com... this says much earlier even still http://reason.com... "she believes that the fetal neural structures needed to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8 to 10 weeks of development. She further asserts: "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced, i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience as a newborn or an adult would have." As evidence that it is possible to feel pain without a cortex Condic cites the fact that children born without a cortex and animals whose cortices have been removed will withdraw from pinches, burns, and so forth. As further evidence for fetal pain, Condic cites studies showing that various medical treatments applied to fetuses in the womb boost their stress hormone levels." perhaps one might contest when pain is felt, saying that reacting to pain is different than being aware of it? perhaps, but there is clearly a pain reaction an that's all that matters when we are trying to be humane and give the benefit of the doubt to human life. there is a ton of evidence supporting when fetal pain begins. and it defies common sense to think pain doesn't exist until viability. a complete baby exists that can survive on its own but it doesn't feel pain? i think that con is even debating this issue shows that it's relevant. con could have just said 'it's irrelevant when the fetus feels pain'/ "The fact is that sex is not solely the act of women, it does take two to tango. It can not be the female's sole responsibility to prevent impregnation." con makes some points but doesn't really say how they play in in this debate. yes there are two responsible people. what's your point? i could live with there being state by state punishment after viability, i'm not dead set on it being murder.
no punishment before fetal pain, moderate punishment then till viability, murder after viability

Abortion should not be illegal assuming it is preformed before viability regardless of the circumstances. It is a person's constitutional right to be able to choose whether or not they wish to carry and bare a child, before the point of viability without the threat of facing punishment. Given that there is currently no substantial evidence supporting the argument of fetal pain before the point of viability (Roe V Wade) , punishment would be premature and inappropriate. Of the existing evidence it is widely believed the earliest approximation at which a human fetus has the functional capacity to experience pain isn't until the 29th week of pregnancy. Although given that there is currently no clear consensus on the precise time that a fetus begins feeling pain or if it even does before the current cutoff for when an abortion can be preformed. Rather than giving the "benefit of the doubt to fetal pain" we should give benefit of the doubt to the person having to face probably one of the most difficult decisions in there live's, the woman. It is all to easy to blame the woman for becoming pregnant and argue that she assumed the risk by engaging in activities that lead to pregnancy. I would like to note that just because it is easy to make such blames doesn't make it any less wrong. The fact is that sex is not solely the act of women, it does take two to tango. It can not be the female's sole responsibility to prevent impregnation. Although it may not be completely unreasonable for someone to be opposed to the idea of abortion when you think of the value of human life. However it is unreasonable to not put that same value towards the life of the woman that would be forced to carry a child. It is even more unreasonable to want to punish someone for causing fetal pain when there has yet to be any concrete evidence that supports it. Plain and simple. It is completely immoral to limit a person's constitutional right based off of fetal pain when there is no evidence that proves that it even exists prior to the point of viability. Finally, given that states already have set punishments for abortions that are preformed after viability there is no need to make it the governments responsibility to make the act have a minimum charge of first degree murder when in most cases it is much more complex and is not that black and white.
A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

.. Personally I see the points you are making but also the ones I brought up on my side. I didn't mean to have such pointed comments in my first post -- reading it back now I see it was a bit too harsh and ad hominem, I didn't intend to disparage you as an individual (I don't know you) but to make my point in my rhetoric. Anyway, good debate! you made some good points, and I"m sure as you practice more you'll soon be smarter than most of the adults on here :)
A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

Your last post honestly just confused me more. I'm not exactly sure where your stance is, or whether or not it's stable -- it seems like you really don't have one stable stasis point from which to develop your argumentation, because now you're talking about spoiled Americans, which is completely new and non-responsive. Also, I can assure you, there are many spoiled children all around the world, especially those who feel empowered by having access to the internet. Also, you say that my response wasn't right because I was talking about the world at large while you're just talking about the Internet; I argue there's no difference, because the same values people hold dear in democracy and politics and society in general spill over to such sites as this -- especially this one, actually, because people on a debate site probably value logic and reason more than those on Youtube. My point was that it's much harder for 12 (or 13) year olds to have developed these vital argumentative skills so early in life -- no personal insult to you on account of anything other than that, though one day I'm sure you'll be miles ahead of others intellectually (you already have a head start; it's clear you're smart for your age), for now, it's not irrational for others to question just how apt you would be debating/discussing with the "big boys", so to speak. Extend through all my previous arguments; none were responded to.
A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

You are nothing but an arrogant individual. Seeing at your response and the way you belittle me. I'm not one of the spoiled American kids you're thinking of. In fact, your response was very far from what I expected. I was to point out why people would rather hold us back in an argument than to let us learn. As what you've said we are still developing, then why wouldn't want us to do so. Also, I was asking and fighting for children's rights to debate on the INTERNET! Get that? Who would come up with such idea that children would want to take decision against the clich" and fithy society filled with imbecile, rampant, and arrogant people. And let's not take this too personal, I won't forbear. Once again, I'm not one of the spoied American kids and I was talking about the INTERNET, get it?
A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

I take the Con: Your voice and opinion don't matter here. In fact, they don't really matter anywhere; in the status quo, you are nothing but an employee-in-training, a robot in submission to higher powers than you or me or any one individual for that matter. The world does not respect the rights of children, and so that is my arg: In the status quo, we see that already Con wins. You haven't even touched on why this is wrong; allow me to give three reasons why this is the right approach. First, children are on balance stupider, less mature, and less apt at public matters; we see this quite clearly in your awful grammar and argumentative structure. Next, if we give rights to children, and recognize their complete autonomy as if they were adults, there would be no mandatory education, thus, no educated workforce, which is increasingly necessary in today's society. Finally, there is no reason why you, like all adults nowadays who were once children, cannot wait your turn, by which I mean, wait until you turn 18 to be recognized as a full citizen. This is not racism or blatant discrimination of any sort; there is reason behind it, and after a while, you'll grow out of your unfortunate social standing. I could go on, and I will when I receive opposition; for now, however, I await your inevitably juvenile response.
A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

I'm 12 and everyone says, "What you doing here. You too young" My birthday is this December 20th I'm very near to be 13! So wrong title. A 13 year old have a right to voice out his opinions in a debate!!! Hihihi. Con would stands for no. I'm tired of hearing You're too young and sh*t. And people often think that we can do nothing and underestimate us. I'm fighting for our rights. Kids rights FTW! (I have a mature mind ;) )
best pokemon starter

Let's begin. Pokemon Red and Blue's winner is Blastoise. Charmander has a rough time at the beginning of the game and only has one extremely useful spot in the game. Venusaur does not have a huge variety of types of moves. Then there is Blastoise. Blastoise can learn ice and ground type moves. Since water types are weak against electric and grass types, you can counter the electric types with Blastoise's ground type moves and the grass types with Blastoise's ice type moves. And with Blue, the Pokemon Champion in the game, he has a Pidgeot, Alakazam, Rhydon, Arcanine, Gyarados, and Vensaur. You can easily counter the Pidgeot with his ice type moves, the Alakazam will not stand a chance if you use bite, which is a dark type move, Rhydon will be a piece of cake with your ice type moves, Arcanine can be destroyed with your water type moves, Gyarados won't be countered by Blastoise, but if you grabbed an electric type Pokemon you can obliterate Gyarados. Last is Venusaur, you can use your ice type moves here to good use. I doubt you want to hear me ramble a bunch so I will for now on just put the best starter for each reason. Pokemon Red and Blue: Blastoise is the best, Venusaur is the second best, and Charizard is the worst Pokemon Gold and Silver: Typhlosion and Maganium tie, Frirlagator is the worst Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire: Swamprt and Sceptile tie, Blaziken is the worst Pokemon Diamond and Pearl: Never played them Pokemon Black and White: Samuwott is the best, and Serperior and Emboar tie. Pokemon X and Y: Delphox and Greninja seem to tie, Chesnaut is the worst Pokemon Sun and Moon: Game is easy so it doesn't matter
gay marriage

Hello Conbot10: This is the last of the round so I had hoped to see your final rebuttal and closing argument. The topic of gay marriage is one that affects our community. It will continue to be a sensitive issue and I do hope the people of the US can find a solution that is favorable to all people whether it is through civil union or through religious acknowledgement. Yet for the time being, I believe we are at the junction where we must agree to disagree.
Mods should work to prevent and sanction personal attacks.

This debate was inspired by WriterDave's thread: http://www.debate.org...In the OP, WriterDave suggests that the current moderator(s) ought to respond to personal insults and attacks by deleting abusive posts and comments. Taken a step further, repeat offenders should be banned. Almost every single person who posted in the thread disagrees with these sentiments, so I should have absolutely no problem finding an opponent for this debate. Round 1 will be utilized for acceptance and clarifications; I will begin my opening arguments in Round 2. Thank you.
Mods should work to prevent and sanction personal attacks.

Fatal Blows to R1, R2, DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4, DA5, DA6, and A1FB1. Profitability of this website is irrelevant to its members, unless they are shareholders, stockholders, or employees. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that we are also responsible for the profitability of our internet services and computer manufacturers that also made interaction on this website possible. However, Juggle makes it expressedly clear in its Terms of Use that it is likewise, not responsible for the material presented on this webite:"Juggle SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONTENT UPLOADED BY MEMBERS OR USERS, OR FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE, OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF ANY MEMBER, USER, OR OTHER THIRD-PARTY, AND YOU BEAR THE ENTIRE RISK OF DAMAGE OR HARM FROM THE FOREGOING."FB2. Moreover, Juggle has foregone any responsibility or interest in intervening in member disputes, as stated in the Terms of Use:"You are solely responsible for your interaction with other Debate.org Members or users, whether online or offline. Juggle reserves the right, but has no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members or users. If you have a dispute with one or more Members or users, you release Debate.org and Juggle (and our officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates) from claims, demands, and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with such dispute."FB3. This debate regards personal attacks, not simply "offensive speech." However, in terms of behavioral regulations set in the Terms of Use, such personal attacks include attacks on one's opinions:" Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account. No use of profanities or swear words. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. Accordingly, if one is to do away with personal attacks, they must also do away with attacks on opinion as well, which would essentially dissolve the entire debate aspect of this site.Conclusions Clearly, an increase in moderation is unnecessary, as you've evidenced in your arguments that hitherto, problems have been dealt with as needed. Given this dispute suggests that further action than what is already applied is necessary, the resolution has been met. Personal attacks should not receive greater attention.
Deism is Not a Rational Alternative to Religion Or Atheism

Deism is the stance taken by theists who, for whatever reason, fear taking the final leap into atheism. Deists believe in a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe, but reject the idea that this being interacts with us. Theists at least are able to say that they 'feel' the presence of God(s) within themselves. This may be a cop-out, as it is ultimately referring to subjective experience, but it is still non-falsifiable. Deists, on the other hand, don't even have this! They like to say that reason alone has led them to this belief, but reason based on what experience? I can reason my way onto Wall Street, but unless my philosophizing is based upon some kind of experience of business, this will never win me a million dollars, or ensure I have a clear picture of what stockbrokers do for a living. The same is true for Deism. Unless you have experience of the divine, explaining the divine is fanciful. Yet Deists deny human-divine interaction altogether! Irrationality.
Deism is Not a Rational Alternative to Religion Or Atheism

Taking the side Con. I will attempt to establish basic principle which links Deism, Religion and Atheism. Deity is a State openly admitting groups of people may hold something others may admire. "IN GOD WE TRUST." Vs. "In Natures GOD we trust." When the term nature is super imposed on GOD, it begins to describe separation by use of no representation. It is not describing a request for equal protection under order of law.
10+2 Is The Right Age To Choose A Career

OK, Pro talked me into taking this. It's a good topic because many of the debaters here are likely to be facing career choices. I challenge Pro to explain what 10 + 12 means, and to formulate a proper resolution that state what he intends to defend. Until he does that, I will assume that what he means is "Resolved: Age 22 is the best age to choose a career." Career choice happens is stages. As early as high school a person often must choose whether they want to take a vocational, business, or scientific tract. this may be a formal choice, or it may be in the selection of elective subjects, like whether the person takes trigonometry or history. The focus narrows at the time when a student selects a college. If the student wants to be a physician or an engineer, then he should select a school that has a pre-med or engineering curriculum choice. The conclusive choice is usually after the freshman year in college, when the student must choose a major. One cannot wait until after college is complete to choose between medicine and interior design. If a career requires no college preparation, then with only a few exceptions it is really not a career, it a job. Consequently, the best time to choose a career is when the student chooses an academic major, usually around age 19. The notion that after college, age 22, is the best time probably derives from confusing a job with a career. Yes, one must choose a job after school, but that is a choice within a career, not the career choice itself. A job is work for a particular employer, a career is a general field of endeavor. In Silicon Valley, technical people average less than two years before changing jobs. their career nonetheless remains in technology. In the US, this is the national trend. Careers require specific preparation for the field, jobs are transient application of the career skills. Short job spans are a national and international trend. For example, in Japan there was once a strong tradition of lifetime employment with one company. Under that system, the first job choice had many elements of a career choice, because the "career" was with the company. That system has now all but vanished in Japan. A career is a field, not a company. It is vanishing everywhere. For these reasons, the right age to choose a career is age 19.
That Homework Should be Banned

I don't understand the silly debate that my opponent has posted but I will continue with my second argument. Onto my first point, that children develop time management and study skills by doing homework. Time management skills and study skills are important part of a students life. Homework is able to benefit them in future life with juggling children and work. Students are able to develop these skills as they have to divide their time to fit homework and other activities such as sport or free time. Without homework where will these skills come from? From a study of professor's Lyn Corno and Jianzhong Xu examined taped sessions with interviews with parents and students. The results found that a third grade student is able to learn responsibility and time management skills. The students interviewed also were able to adjust there study habits and independent learning to suit the demand of a assignment or test. These results were also confirmed by professor David Warton from the UNSW. The results confirm homework benefits you and helps develop study skills as well as life skills. My second point is that homework establishes a communication link between students, teachers and parents. A bond between a student, teacher and parent is very important for the students academic and physical achievements. Parents are able to see the quality of the curriculum and the benefit it is to the student. Not only does homework allow the parent to understand what the student is learning but also develops the relationship and gives time for the parent and student to bond. Without homework would you be spending more time on technology or bonding with your parents? The relationships between parents and teachers is a very important aspect and assisting in the building of the students learning. Teachers and parents are able to communicate at meetings, conferences, phone calls and email. Research shows that the more parents and teachers who share relevant information with each other about the student, the better equipped both will be able to help to that student achieve academically. This shows that parents are more than capable to help students learn. If parents don't understand the curriculum they are able to learn online. Trials at school are starting in Melbourne and consist of an afternoon session were parents are able to be in a learning environment and be educated by teachers to the new curriculum. HOMEWORK IS NOT A CHORE ITS A BRAIN SCORE