BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion on demand is morally and ethically wrong as well as currently overused

Ok CON I look forward to your round 3 response It's been real, Synonyms for "immoral"- WRONG, shameless, and, bad. Also, Immoral is a SUBJECTIVE term. It is OPINION based. Let me just start by answering an invalid question that CON posed in round 2. Do cows require the same protections as the human fetus according to PRO? Well the reason this is an invalid question is that CON is trying to compare the humane treatment of a person to the humane treatment of an animal. I am all for animal rights but if your asking me to prioritize then the person has to come first. I don't see how it is that CON compares developing human life to livestock, vegetation, and micro organisms. I will entertain this topic on the issue of fetal pain, yet again. If CON had read the document that I referenced in round 2 there was documentation of not only pain conduction in the brain of the developing person, possibly as early as the first trimester, as well as stress chemical production and stress response to pain in the developing person. So let me make it as clear as I can I think that all abortions are wrong, shameless, bad, and immoral because they do cause pain to a developing person and ultimately the death of that person. It would be considered immoral to do such things to any other person. I don't see the difference. As for the issue of overuse of abortion. CON wants to know at what point does it become overuse? That is simple, in my eyes at least. Remember we are dealing with a living human being. Also, we have available to us today the Emergency Contraceptive Pill. I think that any abortion that is done for anything other than serious medical condition in the mother should be considered overuse. According to the numbers in 2009( referenced in round 2) so many of those abortions were because of women not using contraception or not using it consistently + a lot of the women were having 2 or more abortions. I think this is immoral, bad, shameless, and wrong because these little people paid the ultimate price because their mothers were irresponsible. Now I have a little comparison for CON, It is not as good as comparing a developing human baby to livestock but here it goes, A developing Human Baby is not conscious, cannot survive without the constant support of their mother, has some brain activity, can move, if given enough time in the uterus they will be born and will no longer depend on the mother's body for survival. A coma patient that is on total life support is not conscious, cannot survive without the constant support of the life support machines and humans caring for them, they have some brain activity, they can usually move, after an undetermined amount of time some will wake and no longer be dependent on their life support.[1] And yes, PRO would like very much for developing babies to have the same rights and protections as other people, even if they are dependent on their mothers for their life. [1] curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-comas-work
Abortion on demand is morally and ethically wrong as well as currently overused

MoralityPRO initially claimed that abortions are wrong because fetuses respond to stimuli. I then pointed out that this is an absurd claim unless bacteria and plants are afforded the same protections. In response, PRO notes that many plants are protected. This is irrelevant because they are not afforded the same protections PRO wants to extend to fetuses. PRO also points out that fetuses show evidence of pain avoidance behavior. Cows an many other animals show similar pain avoidance activities [1], they then require the same protections according to PRO. If we accept the claim that fetuses feel pain, then what? Why is causing a fetus pain immoral? Setting that aside, PRO has still not shown why we abortions are wrong in moral context. PRO wrote in Round 2, "I think it is definitely immoral to think of a human fetus as anything but exactly that (a baby) just to justify in your mind the act of getting an abortion. " This is an opinion and possibly an argumentum ad passiones [2], a logical fallacy. Either way, PRO has still not tied his arguments to morality; his point still fails. OverusePRO has brought some interesting statistics to bare in this round, but has still not defined "overuse," so any discussion regarding this prong of his argument is just running in circles in the mud. ConclusionPRO has certainly strengthened his arguments regarding fetal pain, but he has not tied it to morality, so that prong of his argument fails. Regarding the overuse prong, PRO has not even defined what overuse is, so we cannot even have an intelligent discussion on the matter. As a final note, as PRO tied both of his prongs together, both need to be demonstrated for PRO to meet his burden of proof. So far, said burden has not been met. [1] . http://etalk.sgu.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion on demand is morally and ethically wrong as well as currently overused

MoralityPRO has claimed that abortions are "morally and ethically wrong," however his justification for this are that a fetus responds to stimuli. This argument fails; both bacteria [1] and plants [2] respond to stimuli, should we afford them the same protections as PRO suggests we give to fetuses? Also, PRO has not explained why his argument is tied to morality. OverusePRO also claims that abortions are overused. How was this determined? At what point do we reach the threshold of "overuse? " There were 784,507 abortions performed in the United States during 2009 [3]. That means that only 1 person in 400 had an abortion, or about .02% of the population. How does PRO classify this as overuse? ConclusionPRO has made a pretty strong claim, but he has failed to back it up with anything other than his own opinion. Perhaps he will be able to strengthen his arguments in the next round. [1] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(physiology)[3] . http://www.cdc.gov...
Abortion on demand is morally and ethically wrong as well as currently overused

Abortion is wrong because think about the objective of an abortion. It is to stop the development and therefore LIFE of the fetus from progressing to independent viability from the mother. As to whether or not the fetus feels any pain while being torn to shreds during an abortion, well there is no way to really know for sure, but they do know that they withdraw from touch and other stimuli. There is also a photo in circulation of a ten week old fetus's perfectly formed hand holding on to a Dr's finger. I could go on. On my other point abortions are overused. What happened to contraception? There are a lot of women that are getting more than one abortion, some more than 3. That is ridiculous. Women do have a right to choose. A right to choose whatever form of contraception works for them. When used properly and consistently contraception is very effective.
Minimum wage in a (completely) capitalist system

Well. I would say that the U. S. A. Fits the profile that I alluded to. A Socially Democratic System that embraces the principles of Capitalism. Of course, Capitalism is relative to monetarism and in a capitalist society the supply of money is relative to ability and success. Realistically we do not all share the same abilities nor the same abilities to achieve. As a species we are undoubtedly unequal and naturally hierarchical. This is obviously why socialism always fails and some form of hierarchical society always develops. Ultimately there are only two real options: 1) The total subjugation of those that are not able to compete. With no regard for their existence or their survival. 2) Or a system where the high achievers are prepared to support low achievers to an agreed level, Commensurate with the needs of a reasonably comfortable existence. In a society where money is the chief deciding factor this can only be addressed through social intervention in one guise or another. Minimum wage being one option. One would hope that The U. S. A. A society that often labels itself as the leader of the free world, Fits into the second of these two categories. Of course. If we took a world wide view. We would obviously see that there are other social systems that do not fit neatly into these two main categories.
Minimum wage in a (completely) capitalist system

I actually agree with you. Soon after I first submitted by opening argument, I realized that it would be difficult to discuss it as we're not talking about an actual existing country. I decided it could be more of a discussion about the concept of capitalism instead of a specific country, Although even then I'm not sure anyone could argue that the minimum wage fits capitalism. We could talk about a specific country like the United States instead if you'd like.
Minimum wage in a (completely) capitalist system

A stylised debate in which Con sets seemingly impossible parameters. But on reflection the obvious flaw in the proposition is to be found in the word "completely". A completely capitalist system would not consider a minimum wage. Wage control and other regulatory policies would be considered separately by autonomous institutions of government. Any State requires governance in order to maintain social stability. Capitalism alone cannot maintain social order. There also needs to be administrative, Legislative, And authoritative institutions. Ultimately you are going to end up with a socially democratic type system, Embracing the principles of capitalism. The alternative is most likely to be autocratic, Anti- capitalist, Pseudo-socialism with control over everything. Realistically, Complete capitalism is impossible. Therefore Con's proposition can only be considered hypothetically. And hypotheses are free to set their own parameters. Which realistically can only be discussed rather than opposed. Probably the best we could hope for in a completely capitalist society is that philanthropy takes precedence over greed.
Minimum wage in a (completely) capitalist system

I don't believe minimum wage should be implemented in a pure capitalist system because it goes against the point of capitalism. First, Let's define capitalism. The dictionary definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state. " Minimum wage contradicts this as it regulates how much a private owner can pay its employees. In a capitalist system, Why should the government decide how much you can pay those YOU employee? It seems so over controlling and unnecessary for them to be involved in such a thing. I could see fair payment becoming a concern, However, But naturally different jobs would warrant different pay and the value of money would naturally shift to account for any changes in average pay. I would like to clarify I'm not saying this is relevant to any specific country like the United States, As the US isn't completely capitalist and has some government intervention. This is merely an argument about capitalism itself.
Failures of American Heroes

As you have yet to define anything, I'll take the preemptive move to do so. Failures: Lack of success Well, I didn't read the question thoroughly, and ended up at the "against" side:/ Sucks to be me. Nevertheless, I'll give it my best shot. So, I'll have to battle it out to prove that We shouldn't teach failures of famous Americans in school And you'll have to prove that we should teach of their failures So Last round only rebuttal, no new points, ay? All the best!
There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of.

(1)Existence exists - Objective reality. Existence i.e. reality, requires no justification, as it is prior to and independent of consciousness. To exist is to be something - distinguished from nonexistence (nothing). It is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. A is A. A cannot be non A. Something exists which we perceive and we exist possessing consciousness - consciousness being the facility of perceiving what exists. Consciousness is a trait of biological entities which is an acquired awareness of an independently existing reality. It follows then that if nothing exists there would be no consciousness - additionally a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is contradictory in essence. Similarly, consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is again a contradiction. Prior to identifying itself as consciousness, it must be conscious of something. Existence (set of all things) exists (trait of existence). As the trait exists this means: Ontologically - essential to each valid concept is the reality of existence. Epistemologically - existence is not artificial. That is, there is no situation in that what it identifies is not fact. "Can you be sure that we truly exist, that we are not some non-existant beings that wish to exist? Can you be sure that, after all, we used to exist, but we do not exist any more? That this is all a simple by-product of a want to still exist? It's all completely possible." So yes we can be sure by virtue of 1. Being conscious and 2. The law of non contradiction which entails A is A. A cannot be non A. Additionally it is impossible to argue non existence from the position of existence. Note this is not a proof of existence - it simply means (again Law of non contradiction) that you cannot exist and be able to argue successfully that you do not in fact exist. Likewise you cannot be in a state of non existence and perform any action (e.g. wish). A cannot be non A. (2)Law of non contradiction You wished to know how this is relevant to "There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of." Quite simply by identifying any entities properties we by default know with complete certainty a matching set of incompatible properties it cannot be. "However, the ability to question something with logical reason and proof is proof of it's non absoluteness." Deductive proof yes - use of logic only if it is correct. It is quite easy to use logic methods incorrectly. For example: All elephants are mammals A tiger is a mammal ----------------------------------- All tigers are elephants. It is logically structured but also unsound.
There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of.

Haha, looks like I have my work cut out for me. This should be fun. Anyway, "1. Existence exists" Can you be completely sure? That is what this debate is all about, after all. Can you be sure that we truly exist, that we are not some non-existant beings that wish to exist? Can you be sure that, after all, we used to exist, but we do not exist any more? That this is all a simple by-product of a want to still exist? It's all completely possible. "2. Law of non contradiction." The law of non contradiction, which states that two opposing viewpoints cannot be both true at the same time, has nothing to do with it. At least, I don't see what it has anything to do with our debate. Would you be so kind as to explain why you proposed the law? "It should be noted that the ability to question something is no proof of its non validity. That is, just because you may be unsure of it, does not equate to its non absoluteness." However, the ability to question something with logical reason and proof is proof of it's non absoluteness.
Private School vouchers should be utilized in the United States.

First, some parameters: The term Private School vouchers, for the purposes of this debate are monies given to low income families so that they can choose to send their children to private schools or public schools. Also for the purposes of debate, these vouchers will be enough for tuition to the average private high schol (a little less the $5000). Assume the vouchers are paid for without increasing the deficit, and the cost is split between the federal and the state governments. If you don't like these parameters, don't accept the challenge, I don't want a semantics argument. I will wait for a challenger to post my constructive.
It is not rape when a women consents under the influence

Well the question is why is one definition better then the other? You must choose either one or the other as they can't be both, which is correct or not is soley based on opinion as you have to choose one or the other. My argument was that by definition consenting while drunk is not rape and I proved that correct with the actual definition that I spoke of. Now if we are considering it to be rape if the person regrets it later then why is it not rape when anyone regardless of there soberness is not considered a rape victim when they regret there decision at a later time?
It is not rape when a women consents under the influence

pro didn't argue "it is sometimes not rape..." his statement is basically another way of saying it is never rape when a woman consents under the influence. if a woman is drunk off her goard and the man is not drunk, he could be taking advantage of her, and that would be rape. if they are both drunk, perhaps it isn't. pro might argue it isn't rape given she 'consents', and rape is 'unconsentual', as a play on definitions. but according to elgal definitions, the definitionis most important here, a woman can be raped while drunk, even though while drunk she consents
It is not rape when a women consents under the influence

when people who aren't drunk later regret sex, that just goes bad judgment on their part. it doesn't show an inability to truly consent because they are drunk. it doesn't show that someoen took advantage o their drunkenness. as even con said, we have to look past the definitions and look at the reasons for them and such. the reasons are as i said in the initial post by me. one can't always consent fully when htey are druk, and others can take advantage of them. legal defniitions in this case are clearly superior to every day definitions provided by con, and they better resonate with good sensiblityies.
Homosexuality and Religion

There would be no need for these wannabes but Jesus decided to play carpenter in heaven every time a new Christian needs real estate in heaven. If comfort is all you seek from your God, then why bother treating him like the conqueror of evil as he should be? Apparently, he left it up to his son, who left it up to humanity. And then to whom should we leave it? Why homosexuality and religion are incompatible? Men abusing God's tolerance for all sinners despite his rules and homosexuals challenging religious traditions. Like I said, a territory dispute. Sharing is caring. But religion doesn't care.
Homosexuality and Religion

Subscribe? Is that the word you want to use? I read the Bible...I don't "subscribe" to it, it's not something I have to renew annually, it's not something that just goes away after awhile and you have to bring it back. And I do not disagree with the Bible, I am simply saying that my interpretation of the Bible is different than that of those Christians who "..preach on the streets like the hypocrites proclaiming their faith..." which if you didn't know is an actual quote from Jesus in the Bible. Even GOD said that it wasn't right for Christians to publicly declare their faith in God and call themselves "purists" or the "righteous", tell people that they are the "leaders" in society and that everyone should follow in their footsteps because they are not. The point of believing in a deity is for comfort, not to win battles. It's to help you become a better person and put your faith in the unknown and trust that everything has a purpose and reason for it, not fight wars. Make peace. Religion itself (and this includes any kind from Christianity to Islam to Judaism) has been so misinterpreted that all people really believe is that it is used to take over the world, start a war, and set rules for which everyone to follow, IT'S NOT. It's a faith that provides a peace and understanding that there is a reason for things and that we are here to make a difference for the good of the world, not for the worse.
Homosexuality and Religion

Apparently, after the wedding, lust becomes as legitimate as love. Why do you subscribe to a bible with which you disagree? It's a war because it's a moral territory dispute. Territorial disputes are the essence of warfare. Telling the Christians what to recognize as sin is as offensive to them as it is offensive that same recognition is to the homosexuals. Stalemate? If faith is not for David vs. Goliath battles, what is the point in believing your version of an omnipotent deity? The variety of differences between people's consciences indicate that none of us have the full picture, a perfect conscience. Yet we compete with each other anyway to see whose is the best and most refined.
Homosexuality and Religion

When did lust and love take on the same form? The definition of lust is "a very strong sexual desire" the definition of love is "a feeling of strong or constant affection for another." The Bible encourages us to love one another as we do ourselves, it's one of the most fundamental teachings by the Christians in the Christian community, not including the extremists. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you lust for them and once they become yours in the eyes of God, argumentatively via marriage, then lusting after them is no longer considered a sin. You seem to think that lust and love are the same things. We are all capable and all guilty of lust but the line is not draw solely at homosexuals. Heterosexuals lust plenty, all you have to do is watch any Hollywood show or movie to understand that. Only atheists share the homosexual denial of the sin system? I clearly stated at the beginning of the argument that I was a Christian, born and raised Lutheran. I stopped attending church because I didn't agree with how many traditional churches interpreted the Bible, but that does not mean I stopped practicing. There is no war to be fought. A person thinks homosexuality is a sin another person chooses to be a homosexual because it is what they prefer, where is this fight? A disagreement is not a fight it is not a war and it doesn't become a war until someone makes it a war. So who started the war? The Christians because they said it was wrong? Or the LGBT because they say that what the Christians say is wrong? Continuing to preach against homosexuality is not a form of war, it is a form of teaching within the Christian community. People are allowed to preach their lifestyles at free will to their friends, family, young, but ultimately it is still each individuals decision as to whether it is right or wrong. The faith is not designed for Goliath vs David battles, the faith is designed to take the individual and show them humility, respect, love, and forgiveness. What a certain groups interpretation of all other detailed matters of the faith is entirely made up of their own human minds which means that there is room for human error. People share their faith all the time publicly, the practice is not just limited to Christians. How many times have you had a Seventh Day Adventist come to your door? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew? Or known a friend who was religious who voice an opinion that was influenced or accepted as part of their religion? How many people do you know that are anti-pork or vegetarian or vegan or think that drinking is wrong or think that partying is wrong because of a religion? Is that not the same as telling people you think the homosexuality is a sin? What one person believes and speaks should not anger another whose beliefs are different.