BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parental consent for Abortion

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the previous round. To conclude in this debate I would once again like to state that it not important for parental consent during an underage abortion. Parental consent can impose a delay into the abortion process, which increases the likelihood of complications. Parental consent can cause women to drive out of state to where there is no parental consent causing risk in traveling. Parental consent can cause back alley abortion for those who are afraid of their parents. Also, it could cause families to be torn, daughters disowned, and abused. Over all I feel I made my debate in the previous rounds and I will let my opponent end this round.
Parental consent for Abortion

Thats okay I am posting now so you can take some time to think :) Of course in a perfect world parents want their children to be able to come to them with anything that is on their mind. Parents often want to be involved in their teenager's lives. However, in the world we live in today it is not always possible for teens to communicate in the home they are living in. We do not know their situation they can be in a loving supportive family, or they can be in a foster family who doesn't care about them. Some teens cannot talk to whomever they live with whether it be their parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, or even strangers. The most important thing is that the adolescent remains healthy and safe. We cannot force people to talk, but by pressuring teens into talking to their parents can cause many other issues, such as mental issues, trust issues, psychological, and physical. A scared teen will not want to go to the doctor if they know their parents would find out. It is more important for a teen to be safe and go to the doctor to talk to a professional about their options whether it be an abortion, adoption, etc. the teen should be able to go without parental notification and permission. This can cause health complications if the teen does not seek help and doctor visitation for both their own body and their baby. Another point I'd like to bring up is if the woman went to the doctor with her parents and the baby has a disease that will affect them for the rest of their life, or if the baby has a defect that will affect the way they are treated and live. The mother of the child may want to have an abortion because she feels it would be cruel to bring a baby into a world knowing it will have a hard life. Her parents may not agree to it therefore the mother of the child should be able to make her own decision if she is the one raising the baby, maybe she won't be able to afford the medical bills the baby would require or tend to its special needs.
Parental consent for Abortion

Sorry about this, but I have exactly 5 minutes until I have to reply without forfeiting, so I have to make this short and simple. I see with the previous rounds that we each have been stating our points over again. As I said "children," are children. If they are accidentally pregnant, purposely pregnant, whatever, they should have parental consent. The child is still responsible of what has happened to tell their parent. If the parents want their child to have an abortion that is okay, because they are living in their house, using their money, and not paying any bills. I must end here because I have one minute left, sorry.
Parental consent for Abortion

The American Medical Association noted that because "the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a 'back alley' abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since...1973." (1) It is important for adolescents to be able to have an abortion with out parental consent due to the quote I have stated above this. Women who choose to not tell their parents but are serious about having an abortion may come to the conclusion of have a "back alley" abortion which can become extremely dangerous. Also, it has been common for women to hide their pregnancy and then ‘toss away' their baby at the end because they could not have an abortion. If parental consent is not necessary women will be able to have an abortion if that is what they choose. A study of abortions by researchers at Baruch College at City University of New York showed that Texas teens who were between 17 years, 6 months old and 18 years old were 34% more likely to have an abortion in the much riskier second trimester than young women who were 18 or older when they became pregnant. This causes a dangerous procedure, and the baby to be at fuller development. Not only would the mother of the baby be at a higher risk of complications such as death and infections but it would be more traumatic. Another point I would like to bring up for consideration would be what if the women wanted to keep the child? Under age adolescents can make up their own mind and what if their parents said they must have an abortion. If their was parental consent then they would be able to sign for their daughter to have an abortion against her own will. (1)American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, "Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion," JAMA, Vol. 269, # 1 (1993-JAN-6), Page 83.
Parental consent for Abortion

If the girl was raped that means they should defiantly tell their parents. They could take it to trial and get the person charged. If the adolescent has a lot going through their mind then the parents should be notified, and prospect counseling. That would not only let the child let them express their feelings, but emotional stress and pressure too. Although their is not much for me to say. .. . I believe I have stated my point clearly. Also, can CON ask more questions to be answered. .. .
Parental consent for Abortion

My opponent states "It means literally that you are "UNDER--- AGE. " That means the child is not only property of their parent, but they must have control in what their child does. " If that is what underage means then let's take a quick side note. The drinking age is 21 years old, if a 20 year old is drinking in their own apartment (where they live without their parents, pay their own bills, etc. ) their parent should have control in what their child is doing? I find that to be absurd that a child is considered "property" of their parents. I will now get back to the debate on abortion and parental consent. I would like you to consider rape. Once again my opponent states "you got pregnant you should not be ashamed of what you have done, because you did. " If the adolescent was raped, by force, drugs, drinking, whatever it may be, and had sex without her consent and became pregnant often they will feel ashamed. Rape victims often feel guilt, powerless, embarrassed, and ashamed. Which is also another reason for an adolescent to feel uneasy about talking to their parents, not only would their daughter have to explain the rape but also relive it in their mind. (1) Another issue with receiving parental consent can be the delay in the abortion process. Parental consent can impose a delay into the abortion process, which increases the likelihood of complications. Generally speaking, the earlier in pregnancy an abortion takes place, the safer it is. The adolescent can now face health problems if their parent does not agree to have an abortion. For the mother's health, it is better not to require parental consent so it does not delay the process. If the parents take their time in discussing the issue at hand their daughter will be in danger. (1). http://www.way2hope.org...
Should schools adopt a year round schedule

The amount of money that schools are given has been getting lower and lower over the past couple of years. Schools have been making tons of budget cuts. The money they have should not go into adopting a longer schedule but into hiring better educators that can teach a two terms worth of work in just one. Schools can get the money by shortening the school schedule instead of adding days or spreading it out. Most people would say that they would preffer a better education to a longer education.
Should schools adopt a year round schedule

1. We are not talking about the Finland system of schooling. A contributing fact to their success would be the reform of their teaching system. We are merely discussing the length of time at school 2. It is just as easy to work in a job, or have social outings after school days on on the weekends. A 3 month break is irrelevant to the completion of 'out of school' activities. 3. If summer break serves as morale for students to achieve better, would you not want that morale to be repeated 4 times during the year? The truth is in Australia holidays being more frequent allow for more 'relaxing' time and the replenishment of energy. 4. The only reason the 'year-round' schedules would benefit you is the breaking up of holidays. The time spent at school is the same but it is spread out, allowing for a more sustained education.
Should schools adopt a year round schedule

Year round schools do not boost learning. Finland has the best education in the whole world based on their international test scores. Finnish teachers only work about 570 hours throughout the school year compared to the 1,100 hours that U.S. teachers work. This proves that just because students go to school for longer periods of time does not mean that their test scores will improve. Students look forward to the long summer break and usually plan for activities or even jobs to earn some money because that is what they are used to. A year round school in the U.S. does not add anymore days to the 180 day school calendar, it simply spreads out school days as well as vacation days. Summer break also serve as a morale boost because students look forward and think that they only have to try hard for "just a few more weeks". Studies show that students with year round school schedules improve their test scores at the same rate as a student with a traditional school calendar. Summer break refreshes and does not affect test scores at all compared to the year round schedule, therefore the year round schedule would not be that beneficial.
Should schools adopt a year round schedule

A year round schedule could mean two things, for the point of this argument I will explain both. 1. A school year with absolutely no breaks in the time, continuing for up to 9-10 months at a time. Which is a version of what is present in America now. Or 2. A 4-term year, with 2-3 week breaks every 10 or so weeks, which is present in Australia (Where I live) I will argue the second point. In Australia we have 4 ten week terms, with a final break of most of December and January to separate the years. Every 9-10 weeks we have a 2 week break, and depending on your school it may be 3 weeks. This is ultimately the better system. The term divide up the subjects and the two week breaks allow for substantial revision (or partying) in the holidays. The two week holiday, allows the student to relax and regain their energy before going back to school to begin another term. As to the 'co-curricular' side of things, these are merely undertaken after the school days and on the weekends. It is much easier in Australia to get into a major league side without competing in a High School side.
A view into an enhanced human world

This is such a complex issue that I can only imagine what would happen. That being said. Let me go into a few more tangents of the imagination. I agree with you on the part of there being a sort of spectrum going from destruction to salvation. However, considering our current state of affairs, I think that with everyone becoming "super-intelligent" it would be a lot different. I think that considering our current governments(and comparing them to the past) we would end up with better systems of government, better health systems, a completely different society(one of enlightenment?), less war, better environments. Mostly because everyone would become smart to some extent (although I still think there would be some remnants of a hierarchy left). I don't know about the weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps what might be a more optimistic outlook are the increase in "weapons" of mass creation. A better way to define what I mean by that is an item that will help in the healing process or a device that allows us to easily visualize, build, etc. Perhaps a robotic system that lets us create things with pieces of matter. War could become obsolete if people begin to realize its frivolousness and understand that there is enough in our Solar System for everyone. I also want to touch on space exploration. With this sort of increase in brain power, better systems for the exploration of space may become available. This comes down to an imaginary scenario. I'm sure there would be a magnification in scientific discoveries and an influx in the application of these discoveries. It would be an interesting event to experience nevertheless.
A view into an enhanced human world

I feel very divided about this question. On one hand I see the utter destruction and massacre that man has been capable of since our very beginnings. And then on the other hand I see all the good and beautiful things created by man, governments, literature, entertainment and much much more. I believe even using 100% there would be mass chaos for a long time. Chaos because the masses both in this country and around the world in 3rd World countries would realize how and why being oppressed and would rise up to break those bonds. Perhaps the world would be divided. On one side you would have entire masses of people together to create more weapons of mass destruction to break the bonds of oppression and in turn causing a greater divide. And on the other side you would have another mass of people pursuing peace but at the same time wanting to defend themselves. Perhaps all men would see reason, in that wars folly and cease war altogether. On environmental level I believe it wouldn't prove for the better significantly. The treatment of the environment, Forest, animals and more would improve. Yet perhaps this would involve greater discoveries in science. For example in London a couple days ago they just created the world's first artificially stem cell grown beef patty that was cooked and eatan. Some think this is a great idea in that it will diminish the demand for cows and lessen thier torture. But on the other hand the stem cells are being cultivated from dead cows.. isn't this asking for more diseases and more cancer ? I'm truly conflicted on whether we would solve more problems or would we create new ones ?
A view into an enhanced human world

If by using 100% of our brains, I will assume that you mean that we have increased aspects of intelligence, awareness, memory, senses, etc. If we were all using "all of our brain" then perhaps we would be more socially conscious and aware of what is going on in our environments. It is interesting to speculate about what might then happen as a result. Perhaps a great deal of social change would occur that would allow people to better the planet. However, one could say that the measure of ones intelligence is a measure of their education. As a result of this we could still have really stupid people with no education. Thus if the education of people is not widespread then we may not benefit from such an increase in brain power. Since there are education systems in place around the world, let us assume that we do. At some point we may then collectively realize that we all have a similar instinctual interest in survival and that through intelligent systems we can sustain ourselves on the planet while still allowing for our species and others to grow. Due to how the planet is currently, it could take awhile for such a system to be put into place, but with enough hyper-intelligent people in play, such a system could be put into place in a relatively short amount of time. This is only half of this scenario. The other half consists of a more selfish view of humanity. This can be shown by all those who are continuously cheating others to gain something for themselves. If enough people are in it for themselves they could simply push the others who wish to better the planet out the window. In terms of society, war, peace, etc., these would likely have drastic changes. You can never know how they will change in such a scenario as this due to the gravity of such a change. My opinion is that things would change for the better, but it is all dependent on who has the power and the resources to do so. If the majority of people realize they are getting fucked over by those in power, then perhaps it would change drastically. If the increase in their awareness doesn't help, then perhaps it could remain completely the same. Another completely different idea is that we would all die because our bodies would not be able to adapt in time to meet the needs of the brain after this transition.
catholic church's claims are weak n early history, regarding papacy

con offers speculation on all the quotes he counter attacks. but not the best argument. for example, cyprian called that council and said "none of us sets hisself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical forces compels...". he is clealy speak in reaction to the bishop of rome's responses, and his words describe that bishop. firmilian's response as cyprian's colleuque is telling. con also ignores all the middle ages information posted in the link. the idea of a inerrant pope didn't arise until around 1200. and,a pope seems to be rebuking the idea of an infallible pope.... most straightforward interpretation of that pope. before then, the most that could be said is that hte pope was 'irrefomable'. but that means a lot like an orthodox biship is irreformable. that doesn't mean they are infallible. and, a later pope can come and change somehting if he doesn't see a past popes teaching as definitive enough. irreformable doesn't necessarily translate into inerrant. and, the fact that there was so little said about irreformable is telling... and there is nothing in terms of inerrant. it makes sense that if infalliblity was true, that it would develop naturally... it doesn't make sense that it'd take a thousand years to develop. con also doesn't respond the fact that ecumenitcal councils to catholics and orthodox early in the church usually had zero to very little papal representation. if the pope was what he said he is in terms of infallible etc, he would have played a lot bigger role. also the tacit admissiom by pope emeritus ratzinger pope benedict is ignored by con as well con also ignores tha tthe first vatican counil was pretty much a sham and the vote for infallibiity was 'bought' and 'shoved' in. con also ignores an entire history of disregard for the bishop of rome http://en.wikipedia.org...
Feeding our children/family

You have very valid points. As being a single parent, I too was a low income family. Food stamps did make eating healthier harder because it did limit your choices of brands and food back in the day. So I was forced to get another job and eliminate other costs of products and services. I downgraded my brands, eliminate foods that we didn't need (chips, candy, soft drinks, ice cream and etc..), stopped my salon services and etc.. in order to give my child a healthier diet plan. The Government is all about making money as we all are. To make money we have to sell products that people will buy. The government or fast food restaurants do NOT force us to choose our foods we eat. I used to work at McDonalds and the salads calorie is based on the serving size and the ingredients in the salad. If you use the whole package of the salad dressing and eat the included cheese and croutons, then "yes" your Big Mac would be the same calorie count as the salad. It's not about the calories when it comes to eating healthy. I eat more calories then my freinds. My foods are meat without seasoning, natural made juices that I make myself, eggs, pasta and etc... No dairy and limited carbs are in my diet. Vitamin D is replaced with tuna and Vitamin D pills. I can stay up longer and walk a longer distance then my freinds who are younger and do eat less healthier. There are foods that naturally make you feel full like grapefruit, cabbage and etc... I used to smoke for years and quitting was not a hard decision for me. Actually quitting was hard but to want to quit was an easy choice due to my child. Looking at a picture of my child everyday was the motivation for me to quit smoking. Looking at my family is the motivation for me cook and eat healthier for my family. Today in the 21st century, there are more choices to eat healthier at most schools (depending on state) and fast food restaurants. There are addictive ingredients in foods but to make the addiction to change, you alone needs to want to change. Pills and Doctors may help, but you have to want to make the change. If you don't want to change, a change cannot be made. Grocery shopping is not easy for me. I prefer to buy the foods that is easier to prepare and tastes better. But knowing the physical health challenges, makes it easier for me to make the healthier choice. We do eat less healthier during the holidays and Super Bowl! Lol.
Feeding our children/family

For some families, they have no choice but to buy processed foods. Unhealthy, processed foods are cheaper than their unprocessed counterparts so many low-income families are forced to eat such foods and become obese. They cannot be blamed for taking an action it they had no other choice.Of course, low-income families make up a minority of families in the western world but there is also the problem of the food itself. The companies who make processed foods design them to be addictive so that consumers would be hooked on the food and keep buying it. They take advantage of the minds instinctive craving for sugar and fast food has actually been shown to induce a sugar addiction in both rats and humans [1]. Not only that but many of their low-fat or other "healthy" foods are complete lies and are no more healthy than the originally processed food. For example, McDonald's salads contain more fat and calories than their Big Mac but because this is very counter-intuitive many people are unaware of this and eat the more unhealthy alternative[2]. Last but not least there's the advertising that is directed towards children who are vulnerable to the influence of advertising because of their developing minds. In fact, children around 6 years old can't even tell the differences between a program and an advertising[3]!. The advertisements influence them to buy processed fast foods from a young age and indoctrinate them into eating the food as they grow up. There has also been researched that linked advertisement to childhood obesity [4] In many ways, companies and their processed foods are manipulating the general populace to purchase their foods similar to how a con man would rip off a person. It is not the fault of the manipulated but instead the fault of the manipulators. Then comes the government who in a lot of ways is at fault for this. The general idea of what a government should do is to make society as prosperous, happy, and happy as possible and by allowing situations where low-income families are forced to eat unhealthy foods and letting corporations to create addicting food and manipulate people to eat it, the government is failing at its job. The government can be blamed for not doing is the sacred task of protecting society. In many ways, processed foods today are like cigarettes for half a century ago. Both are addictive substances that can greatly harm the health of a person but when we see countries that have many smokers, one blames the government for not trying to stop cigarette use rather than the people who actually smoke it. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2]http://www.cnbc.com... [3]http://www.apa.org... [4]http://www.apa.org...