BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is First Degree Murder

Alright. Well, I am going to make a stand with the definition of first degree murder you made, because it seems like you want to ignore one of the parts of it, or almost all of it except for the human being part.First, please note that the definition of first degree murder that my opponent provided says that it has to be unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is legal in the United States as of Roe V Wade, and it's legal in most western nations, so by western standards, abortion would not be first degree murder for this reason.Second, notice that the definition says "with malice aforethought" and is "malicious". A mother can simply have the thought of having an abortion because they know they wouldn't be able to give the child a good life. Maybe she recognizes she would be a terrible mother and doesn't want to subject the child to herself, or perhaps she is unable to properly provide for the child and doesn't want the child to have to go through a terrible life. In many ways, dying or not being born at all is a better alternative to having a terrible life. And finally, maybe the baby was going to have such a severe birth defect, that the mother didn't want to make the baby be born and be subject to that terrible defect.There are many reasons a mother may get an abortion, and many of those reasons are not done out of malice.I contend, therefore, that abortion is not first degree murder according to the definition my opponent provided.I rest my case.
Abortion is First Degree Murder

Con says, ". . .the resolution is that abortion is first degree murder, so I would only need to prove that abortion is not first degree murder acording to it, but now you say that I need to prove fetuses are not human. These are two completely different things." I fail to see how the humanity of a developing fetus is unrelated to the legality of abortion. Quite simply, if a even a zygote is found not to be human, then abortion would not be murder since I'm arguing that the abortion of even a zygote is 1st degree murder. I am making it easier for Con as I am allowing him to address a fetus at any stage of development. Why is the abortion of even a zygote not 1st degree murder?Con claims, ". . .there are clearly other parts to the definition of first degree murder that pro provided." I assume my opponent is referring to the "unlawful" part of the definition as he has hinted to in the comment section. I am not arguing that abortion is illegal in light of judicial rulings, rather, I am arguing that abortion, according to the definitions of "human being" and "malice aforethought" qualifies as murder in the 1st degree. Abortion is the killing of a human being and 1st degree murder is an unlawful act, but lawful murder is an oxymoron. This is my point.In taking issue with my line of argumentation, Con says, "If, however, I can argue from a different standpoint that shows abortion doesn't fit the definition of first degree murder, then I will write something next round." You may argue whatever you wish. It is up to the voter to determine whether a particular argument is valid or relevant. If you wish to address my arguments by demonstrating how they are irrelevant to the issue at hand, you may do so. If you wish to argue that, because abortion has been legalized, the killing of a fetus is therefore not 1st degree murder, you may.I extend the debate to Con. . .
Mass Media plays a greater role than the people around you in the development of your personality

I would love to further this debate with you, it has been both highly interesting and somewhat challenging, invite me and i shall come. Conclusions Since there has been much agreement between us i believe my conclusions will read similar to PRO but if you've stuck with us this far i'm sure you won't mind looking through my stand points on these subjects. again, i argue that the media may be a one sided influence but you can very easily change channels to find something you agree with, swapping peer groups is much harder and being self subjected does not necessarily make it more influential since you will very rarely sit around watching things with moral views opposing your own I actually disagreed with that point, preferring to move towards the learning styles argument. this varies from person to person. Being that the split for intrapersonal learners to interpersonal learners is much more toward the social side in modern day children and adolescents, primarily school friends in this case, it is likely that you would spend more time with your friends being influenced by them than you would sitting in front of the tv. Increased focus would make you more analytical of what you are being told, therefore by following this point hypnosis would act to make you more resistant to influence, arguing against how you've decided to use it. agreed, the media cannot be influenced. but the many varieties of views in the media make it easy to find something which you will then agree with, meaning you can easily choose not to be affected, many people will move away from what they disagree with. since none of the points you made can be exclusively given to your side of the argument i don't believe that you have proven this in any way. finally, would it be possible to leave the next debate's address in comments so our many avid followers could continue to follow us, though i would appreciate it if voting were done separately for each debate to show how well we did in this one.
Mass Media plays a greater role than the people around you in the development of your personality

Thank you Brepar for this debate. This is the last round and if you agree, I would like to continue this discussion with you in a follow on debate. You have made very clear and reasonable points. The points have not persuaded me to agree with your cause over mine, but they have changed my view of how powerful peer relationships are in comparison to other forms of influence.ConclusionsMass media, still has the greatest influence over our personalities, because bypass the critical factor, is agreed to by the individual, and cannot be rebutted.As per the previous argument by con. peers are able to influence each other. I have clearly proved that because Media is a one sided influence, it has the greater influencing power.In bypassing the critical factor, we have both agreed that a persons ability to accept influences is based on their attentiveness. I am conceding to Con's definition of hypnosis as a person being in a higher state of mental alertness and therefore more able to be influenced by messages given and less able to reject the messages being given. This also makes mass media a greater influence over peers.Con and I both agree that all influences are believed until they are disbelieved. However in the case of peers, all peers have influence over each other. Mass medias are static and cannot be directly influenced by the individual at the time of being influenced. Because of these three things that we have talked about, mass media has the upper hand in personality development over all other forms of influence.
Mass Media plays a greater role than the people around you in the development of your personality

here you have offered a lot of evidence for the ability of mass media to cause hypnosis but very little evidence that it causes a significant change in the psychology of the people that are subject to the mass media. in fact this article that you cited: https://youthradio.org... could be taken to say quite the opposite, if hypnosis can be considered as the lens of a camera then all that it truly achieves is to focus your mind onto something. http://www.hypnosishelpcenter.net... FAQ 2 states that it is impossible to hypnotise someone against their will FAQ 3 states that whilst under hypnosis you will still possess the ability to follow what you are doing and to intervene therefore the hypnosis does not escape the influence of conscious mind and you can control whether or not you act on the suggestion. New argument i doubt however that you can find much evidence to refute this work by the ersc. giving quotes such as: --->A supportive home learning environment is positively associated with children"s early achievements and well being and influences social mobility. --->Fathers" involvement is associated with a range of positive outcomes for children including educational and emotional attainment, and protects against later mental health problems.
Mass Media plays a greater role than the people around you in the development of your personality

Origins of this debate started in the comment section of http://www.debate.org... Mass Media-Plural Mass Medium: a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, video games, internet, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people —usually used in plural.Round 1 is for Acceptance, Definitions, and ConditionsRound 2 is for imperial evidenceRounds 3 & 4 are for Refutation, Rebuttals, and New Argument.Round 5 is for Conclusion.This will be a fair debate based on the evidence provided by the debaters and evidence of misconduct or situational provisions will be taken seriously. Each side assumes BOP and it is assumed that the influencing factor being argued for has full control or equal control of its subject in favor of the Debater whose argument is being presented.Examples: CON says that a parent or friend playing video games with the subject is personal influence.--UNFAIR.Pro says that a parent is never there and the subject partakes in Media for 40 hours a week.--UNFAIR. Voters should decide Convincing Arguments based solely on the most adequate proof of influence over the subjects personality development. The subject will be referred to as child, user, friend, gamer, listener, or some other term as identified by the debaters.Brepar, if you have any disagreements or additions to these statements, let us work them out in the comment section before starting the debate so that final confirmations of conditions may be presented to the voters in your opening round.
Multiple Topics - Pick One

First off, @Speedrace, Thanks for accepting the challenge and proposing this topic. I look forward to a fun chat/debate :) Is Christianity An Obstruction To Society? I would argue yes, For numerous reasons, But I will kick this debate off with these two reasons for now, To get things started. 1) Immoral standards – Under divine command theory, Anything commanded or endorsed by God is considered “good” or “moral”, Because God is an absolute authority on the subject and his word is final. Immoral standards such as slavery, Misogyny, Stoning disobedient children and adulteress wives, The concept of Hell and genocides to name a few, Are all sanctioned by God. These views are abhorrent in nature and entirely immoral by secular standards. Our society, At least here in the US where I am from, Does not condone these types of morals, Thankfully. There are however, A lot of Christians who base their views and morals on their religious beliefs and this often ends in heated political debates. Although I wholly disagree with them, They are in fact "good" Christians, As they are basing their morals on what they believe is right, Under the misguidance of scripture. A couple examples of this is stem cell research and abortion, Where scientific development and individual rights are directly being obstructed under the guise of religious propaganda. Simple put, The Bible places Christians at odds with secular society on a moral front and this inevitably bleeds into the political and legal domains where their religious beliefs obstruct the advancement of society. 2) Anti-scientific – The Bible makes direct pronouncements about the world that completely violate all known science. Proclamations such as a universe created in a week, Magical enchantments and curses, Resurrections, Miracles and many other testaments that entirely defy our observable reality. Not only are these proclomations laughable from a science standpoint, They are a disservice to the early developing minds of the children who are indoctrinated into these belief systems. In addition to this, Christians are also fighting to include this lunacy in public funded acadeimia. Here in the US, There was actually an educational board meeting held in the state of Texas regarding whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. This is not the only state occurrence of this. Creationism has absolutely no objective science to support it, And all known science disproves it. This is another example of Christianity Obstructing society. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Donald Trump and the Republicans will lose the 2020 election.

Well, my opponent seems fair with his arguments, but he cannot answer, straight to the point, those five questions because he made a compulsive mistake. Donald Trump is the most unpopular president ever in American history, and his mandate of "America First" is somewhat similar to Charles Lindbergh's belief when he opposed entering the United States from the Second World War. Your assumptions on why Trump still won despite the negativity aren't classified as valid arguments. In the eyes of many, yes, he is seen as a racist, sexist, misogynist, narcissist, and a bully, but the people who Trump helped them are similar to what Muammar Qaddafi and his supporters did since his reign as the leader of Libya. His followers "disenfranchised or disadvantaged by previous administrations" found Trump as the only solution, but he is similar to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Trump has removed pollution controls, withdrawn from the TPP (which Trump-supporters believe is the cause of the declining domestic manufacturing sector), implemented the travel ban, and even pulled out the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. They were some of Trump's main promises which have been" fulfilled" in the first 6 months of Trump's time in office. To Trump's supporters, that is an "accomplishment", but to the silent majority, a disaster and a dereliction of American democracy. His promises are kept by word as an authoritarian, and those changes, to the delight of his supporters, led to where the United States is at right now: a third-world country, a flawed democracy, a one-party state ruled by the Republicans, a laughingstock in the eyes of the world, and a dystopia ruled by the rich and powerful who did nothing but undoing Barack Obama's legacy. If Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have been President of the United States, or Hillary Clinton would have won the election, America would have never gone the path of eradication and complete destruction. Obama's legacy would have been solidified, and America's position as the leader of the free world and the most powerful democracy would have remained. But thanks to Donald Trump and his supporters, the United States is now dying and on the path of extinction as a country. He didn't even define the meaning of good and bad populism precisely and accurately. I challenge my opponent to answer one question: will you condemn Donald Trump's actions as President and stop the construction of the border wall between the United States and Mexico, as well as reconsidering his decision on the Paris Climate Agreement, or will he just stand here and do nothing but stating arguments that are not really valid?
Donald Trump and the Republicans will lose the 2020 election.

This is not about the ethics of Donald Trump, his demographic nor the harmful consequences of his polcies. It is about whether he would be voted to a second term. Your opinions on Trump do not count as valid arguments. In the eyes of many he is seen as a racist, sexist wacko, but there are people who feel that Trump can help them after feeling disenfranchised or disadvantaged by previous administrations. Trump was an outlandish candidate. He bullied his way to the top, and targeted people to lash out against either to garner support or to offend them without forethought. He exploited the anger of the American populace by attacking the groups that many Americans are frustrated with-i. e Muslims and Latinos. He has also impulsively insulted women, POWs, and people with disabilities during his campaign. Trump still won that election, despite the derogatory comments he made during the campaign. Again, many across the world view Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement as deplorable, but many of his supporters were affected badly by increasing pollution controls. Moreover, according to a Gallup Poll, only 49% of Americans believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Trump has doubted the authenticity of climate change for a while, and while that assertion is false, many believe him and that his promises to lift pollution controls will bring back jobs and economic growth. There has been increasing light shed on the investigation into Russian interference. However, there has been no direct link between Donald Trump himself and the Kremlin, which implies that Russia may have wanted Trump to win, but Trump didn't want Russia's help. Trump expressed his admiration for authoritarianism during the campaign, and despite that, he still won. The illusion of long-term economic growth, the revitalization of fossil fuel and manufacturing jobs and so called control of the borders is exactly what his supporters want. Trump has removed pollution controls, withdrawn from the TPP (which Trump-supporters believe is the cause of the declining domestic manufacturing sector) and implemented the travel ban. Trump's supporters want these changes. They were some of Trump's main promises which have been fulfilled in the first 6 months of Trump's time in office. To Trump's supporters, that is an accomplishment. You have also stated that because Trump is being praised by the far right, he will be less popular. Again, Trump won in 2016. The far right have accumulated a lot of support in recent years and many Americans feel they align with the ideals of the far right, despite the racist and disastrous agenda they promote. There is no such thing as 'good'populism and 'bad'populism. Everyone has different opinions, and there are so many conflicting agendas that it is extremely difficult to pinpoint good populism and bad populism, but generally in media, the bad populist is the controversial extremist (Marine le Pen, Geert WIlders).
Donald Trump and the Republicans will lose the 2020 election.

My opponent seems peculiar when he laid out the basis on why the Republicans will maintain the majority in the 2020 election. He doesn't mention the fact that the last time Republicans were in power, they wrecked the economy further and as a result came the 2008 global financial crisis. He said that his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement made clear that they turn their backs on the "establishment" agenda on endorsing action against climate change, instead they will put America first by restoring jobs in the process of exploiting fossil fuels, and construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In reality, Donald Trump really doesn't care on the environment, he only cares on the workers to make him even richer. He also said that his actions solidify the votes for white, working class males who didn't finish college for 2020. In reality, the demographic he made also includes white nationalists, white supremacists, anti-Semites, and Catholics. Donald Trump is nothing but a racist, misogynist, sexist, uneducated, and stupid. Let my opponent answer the following: 1. Why did he say that in his campaign, Mexicans were "asumably good people", and "bringing drugs, crime, and they're rapists"? 2. Why would he said that he would "drain the swamp in Washington", yet some of his cabinet are extremely unpopular like Betsy DeVos and Neil Gorsuch? 3. Why did he say that John McCain is not a war hero just because he was captured? 4. Why did he win the election with the help of Russian intervention, and caused the delight of Vladimir Putin, which became a subject for a BBC documentary calling Donald Trump "the Kremlin candidate"? 5. Is it a better campaign if he publicly insulted Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, and especially women, and praised only the whites, males, uneducated people, unemployed, and even worse, evangelicals and Christians? Short term economic growth, defiance against renewable energy and the travel ban will lose the ground support base of Donald Trump, because the majority don't want these. The United States, in the latest Democracy Index, has downgraded to a "flawed democracy" because of the factors that led to his election. He mentioned the term "populism". Well, let me emphasize these that my opponent needs to think: Good populism is what Justin Trudeau led to his power as Prime Minister of Canada, elected its first Green Head of State, would hand Angela Merkel to another term as German Chancellor, and defeated Geert Wilders, while bad populism is what Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the election, what Rodrigo Duterte led to his Presidency, and made the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. I await my opponent's concrete answers to those five questions, as well as the definition of good populism and bad populism.
Donald Trump and the Republicans will lose the 2020 election.

Trump has one weapon-the weapon he used in the previous election that defeated Hillary Clinton: populism. Trump has kept his word on his most popular but controversial policies. The travel ban has gone into effect. Despite the outcry which has arisen from the travel ban, that has only affirmed the support base that Trump used to win the 2016 election-the white, working class males who did not finish university. To the press, it may seem as a racist action with no moral nor logical ground, however, to his supporters, it proves to them that Trump is sticking to his word. It solidifies the votes from that demographic for 2020. As the war in Syria and Iraq see no foreseeable end, Trump can continue to exploit the anger and frustration which have arisen from these attacks. He has also lashed out against environmental protection laws by withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Many of his votes came from those who have lost their jobs in the process of exploiting fossil fuels. The lifting of pollution controls is also beneficial to the economy; at least for the short term. Trump has also backed the construction of the Dakota pipeline, possibly a sign of resistance against proponents of renewable energy. To those who have lost their jobs in the exploitation of fossil fuels, this is a sign of defiance against the establishment who have always endorsed action against climate change, actions which have cost them their jobs. In conclusion, short term economic growth, defiance against renewable energy and the travel ban have affirmed the support that his support base has for Trump.