BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion, except in the cases of rape or when the mother's life is endangered, should be banned.

My opponent represented "killing is not the right solution for unhappy children." First of all, "unhappy children" is not enough of a description for the situations that the babies, whom their own parents wanted to abort, will get through. They will neither experience love from their parents, nor live in an appropriate condition. It is certainly doubtful that parents who did not want their children to be born would treat their children well in the future. "Unhappy children" is an appropriate description for kids who are not allowed to play with their friends too much, or forced to study all day. The state that the children whom their parents were forced to give birth to because of their irresponsibility will be much worse than the state of unhappy. It is not a mere assumption, but it is a perceptive future for those poor unborn infants, if they were forced to live under pressure of the social environments surrounding them entire their childhood. Secondly, people should not only focus on the babies, but also focus on the woman who is on a serious perssure that cannot be compared to that of any others. She will have to devote her entire life for her child; the burden that she will have to deal with will be hard for most of us even to imagine. Therefore, it is she who has to decide to give birth to her own child, not anyone else. My opponent argued that there is another option that's called adoption. However, candidates for adoption are not always present, and the mother is in the situation where she doesn't have enough time to wait for a candidate for adoption. Furthermore, the governement's foster care system for the babies is often in a miserable situation. In the state of Texas alone it is learned that 48 foster children died in the state's care. Compared to the general population, a child is 4 times more likely to die in their foster care system than in a loving household. And the only way we got these statistics is because Texas is one of the few states who takes action and tries to help these children as much as possible. Many states are less effective, less caring, and more neglegent than Texas. Foster care is unsafe. In 2004, almost 100 children were treated for poisoning; 63 were treated for rape that happened while in state care; and 142 children gave birth. In Missouri, they found that 57% of foster children were likely to be abused and neglected. (I'm using libertarian's quotes for this citations) [http://www.window.state.tx.us...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Since it is certain that government doesn't have proper and appropriate system for the parents who can't raise their babies on their own, the parents are only left with a tragic, but inevitable option, abortion.
Abortion, except in the cases of rape or when the mother's life is endangered, should be banned.

First, I would like to note that my opponent agrees with me on the fact that it is, quoting uj0320, "acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being." I interpret my opponent's argument as: (1) There is an increased chance of the children being unhappy (2) Therefore, we should allow abortion My opponent's argument has 3 flaws: (A) My opponent's solution to helping unhappy children is flawed. We do not KILL children simply because they are unhappy. For my opponent to successfully argue against this objection, he or she (I can't tell by the name) must rationally support the idea that a HELPFUL way to treat unhappy children is to KILL them. (B) My opponent assumes that these children will be unhappy. Even if my opponent somehow explains how a helpful way to treat children is to kill them, he or she must show how he or she KNOWS that these children will be unhappy. Unless my opponent shows this, his or her argument rests on the fact that there is a CHANCE that the child will grow up to be unhappy. However, this position is irrational. If we should abort people simply because there is a CHANCE that they will become unhappy, then we should abort EVERYONE. Why? Because, for everyone, there is a chance of growing up unhappy. My opponent's illogic is obvious. Yes, there is a chance that the unborn will grow up unhappy. But yes, there is a chance the unborn will grow up happy. What my opponent MUST show is that the unborn babies WILL grow up to be unhappy. Personally, I don't believe that my opponent can show this...unless my opponent can see into the future. (C) My opponent creates a false dilemma. My opponent seems to assume that a child can either be aborted or kept. However, there is another stunningly obvious option: ADOPTION. If a child is adopted, then their parents, who my opponent states will likely not take care of them well, do not have to take care of them. This gives them a chance to be adopted into a family that will take care of and love them. I would also like to add that I am not debating this for purely intellectual reasons. Through this simple online discussion, I pray that someone will recognize abortion for what is truly is: an evil that takes 1.2 MILLION lives away every year.
Abortion, except in the cases of rape or when the mother's life is endangered, should be banned.

I think differently. There is truly no doubt about that abortion results death of unborned baby. And it is also acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being, because unborned babies are already considred as human beings at the point where they were created according to the citations. However, abortion is not for the benefit of people who want to abort their babies, it is for unborned babies. It is quite expectable that people who want to abort their babies, except for the cases that are mentioned in the topic, were irresponsible enough to not think about the consequences of having a sexual relationship without proper equipments or knowledge. There is only a little chance of them to raise their babies with full responsibility in the future;therefore, the unhappy children will not live in ideal environments for the most of time. By prohibiting them from aborting their babies, it can cause other serious problems. The irresponsible parents-who will most likely be only the mother, in this case- will be overwhelmed by the amount of work that is needed to raise a baby. Also, according to a scientific research, the babies from such parents are more potentential of commtting a crime than other babies are.
Abortion, except in the cases of rape or when the mother's life is endangered, should be banned.

My argument is simple: (1) A fetus, or embryo, is an individual human being (2) Abortion kills this innocent human being. (3) Abortion should be banned. The main contention that needs to argued for is (1). In support of this, I will use an objective way to show that fetuses are individual, human beings: DNA. William Lane Craig, Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has said, "Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or Y chromosome from the sperm. The later developments of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality that has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits, such as body type, ey and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth, are determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception." From the moment of conception, the fetus has DNA that tells us that it is human (obviously) and that it is an individual (in that no one else has that DNA). What do we call an individual human? A human being. This is why Professor Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School has said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins as conception." My second point follows the simple definition of abortion. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Abortion kills the fetus. My conclusion follows logically. The killing of innocent human beings, no matter how large or small, should be banned.
Character is best forged by Mental Pain

I'd like to see if we can't find some common ground on which to debate this. You are of the opinion that 'personal' experience (yours and what you observe in others) is a valid basis for ascertaining 'truths' of the world. I simply contend that it is not because your 'experiences' are unique to you, as well as your 'interpretations' of others experiences. Einstein knew this when he postulated his theory of relativity (which takes into account the 'experience' (or point of view) of the observer). By quoting facts, statistics, etc. I am not attempting to 'insult your intelligence'. I am merely operating on the above principle, that whatever you or I may 'think' it is not a basis for uncovering the worlds's truths. I also believe you can 'learn' from debates, but I disagree that it is not about winning. In a presidential debate, (arguably one of the most important debates), I'm sure that the candidates learn about others and themselves (and possibly the issues themselves) but they are there to 'win' their argument. (here is where I would usually quote a source on what the objective of a debate is defined as, but I won't). Also, because we have had dealings before, you are mistakenly making this about MY character. I am simply debating my position on why 'character is best forged by mental pain'. I am purposely trying to avoid relating MY experiences, because again, that is unique to me and may not apply to other people or the world at large. Using your own words, "We should debate the real issues, not rationalizations." I agree. And the REAL topic of debate is not that "niceness" is not a factor in determining one's character, or that "adversity" is problematic. The real topic is that Mental Pain forges CHaracter the best, which I outlined in my first argument, and that concentrating ONLY on niceness in the world leaves you unprepared to face adversity as strongly as if you had experienced pain before. There are people who crumble; but unless they die, they come back stronger than before, much like a broken bone heals stronger than it was originally. And that is what I'm trying to have someone see.
Character is best forged by Mental Pain

First 1visman96 must be willing to remove the word "solely" as this would be silly putting all my eggs in one basket..? If not I will forfeit anything below now..! Before my first rebuttal some will consider my way a bit unusual, my arguments are based more on real life experiences of others and self rather than statistics or polls. Not that statistics and polls are not true,(and some are not)facts are defiantly the way to prove "some" points, but the "sources" of some facts can be completely bias and hinder the findings of actual truths. Like the skills of some lawyers twisting the facts to fit there need to succeed,"regardless of the many family's they destroy"..! Where have all our ethics gone..my heart goes out to the many,many,Goldman's of this world..! Let me begin by saying my glass has been always half full, so my world is a is a nice place to be. I'm not saying that the trials and tribulations of life haven't hardened many in their walk of life, including myself. Some relate character building through this experience of trial and suffering as the only means of their success. If your lucky it's just the beginning of your journey. The reasons some things in this world are nice is because man has a teacher that is forever teaching, call it Mother Nature, God, Creator, etc, no matter what our beliefs all our life we will be forever students, we learn how to make the best of what we have, this is the way we begin to build character. A persons character is only judged by their works, being nice is one of them, if we have hardened hearts we have to be careful on what we may become. Being nice or having compassion for all creatures is true humanism and a lesson we all should have all learned from the great Native Peoples. I totally understand how birds of pray work, and so do many others, their stealthiness is diminishing, their shadows are getting more visible. To conclude my opening statement I'd like to end with saying in my opinion niceness does not leave one vulnerable or unprepared and while some may experience pain in building character this does not mean other ways are lesser. Woodrow Wilson: If you will think about what you ought to do for other people, your character will take care of itself. Character is a by-product, and any man who devotes himself to its cultivation in his own case will become a selfish prig.
Character is best forged by Mental Pain

My views are"pain"is NOT necessarily the best way to build character,and how niceness does NOT leave us"vulnerable"in-fact niceness is a building block of character. As we know every human will react to adversity different,it will depend on how in earlier years they were influenced in their development.(with no major adversities)If a childs upbringing was consistent with the teachings of good ethics and were established,the child would most likely handle most situations or misfortunes.For more U can go to:www.charactercounts.org/defsix.htm This is"only"to give some insight on"how"to build psychological deterrence to adversity in ones journey.It is important we understand that most parents try to instill these basic values in our children,not just for their survival,but so they are aware of the consequences of bad or unruly behavior. Using 1vismans analogies of drunk drivers can actually help me prove a vital point,if the drunk driver makes the choice to drive(just as drinking in excess is a choice)they without a doubt are in no condition to make rational decisions.However those who choose not to drive think SOLELY(i.e.ONLY)on the principles of what makes a better character,to drive drunk,or not to drive drunk,this is the sign of good character.(and all possible without experiencing adversities)Some will say if you have never been to Hawaii and just read about it,the experience is not the same,this statement leads one think one who reads a book on tropical islands,with warm breezes,warm ocean waters,delicious fruits,etc will never see it as well as they did.While believing myself on the job training does usually make a more"immediate"success,in reality down the road the one who studied extensively on this certain subject would have probably fared better,or at least been more efficient.If one was totally blind(never ever seeing before)I would agree with 1vismans theory,(and as we all know that is an ideal or hypothetical set of facts,principles,or circumstances)point being even a blind person who once did see can probably visualize Hawaii better than you or I.Building character with good ethics will protect and the capabilities of being physically or emotionally wounded will be diminished when and if adversity strikes,enhancing their chances for victory. 1visman mentioned differences,regardless,I truly believe he is a good soul,and has helped many,his intention's are honorable,his methods a little stringent,yet applicable as drill instuctor. Semper-Fi
Character is best forged by Mental Pain

First off, you have my sympathies on your losses. Although eloquent in his reply, my opponent has not disproved my contention that Character is best forged by Mental Pain and to rely SOLELY(i.e.ONLY)on learning through 'niceness' leaves you vulnerable. I went on to say that if the 'pain' doesn't kill you (a euphemism for having you forsake goodness of your soul, which in turn is the 'death' of the soul) it will make you stronger. I allowed my opponent to dictate the format of the debate to PERSONAL experiences and have deliberately not cited facts or figures to back up my claims. I have also tried to relegate experience to my own personal experiences, purposely not detailing the myriad number of people throughout the world who have risen above dire situations, poor upbringing or physical/mental afflictions for which history is rife with. My opponent has also stated that 'life experiences' of pain are unavoidable if you live long enough and relegated some of his own personal experiences of pain. And by so doing has helped me prove my case. Case in point: Everyone knows that 'drunk driving' shows at best a morally ambiguous character or just reckless youth. I'm sure this drunk driver was 'told' that to drive drunk was wrong. I'm sure they've heard news stories,watched TV reports, read newspaper highlights. The only thing that was missing was EXPERIENCING. In my previous rounds, I lamented that unless someone 'experiences' something, they in fact, cannot truly know it and it becomes detached from them. However, if a potential drunk driver had their spouse killed because of a drunk driver, what is the likelihood that they will drink and drive ? The pain of loss makes it 'real' for them and they 'understand' the problem like no one else who has not lost a loved one to drunk driving. And thus, strengthens their character. Mental pain affects people like no other experience. We will ALL have mental pain in our lives. Knowing mental pain firsthand makes us want to assure that no other human being goes through it. It Makes parents not want their children to go through it. Enlightens those souls who would make a difference. Mother Teresa is widely known to have started her ministry by going to the slums of India and seeing it FIRSTHAND, in the trenches. We have had our differences, Easy2know. For what you've experienced,"I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy" is a very apt saying. Because I've been there it comes from the heart, and is not just a saying.
Character is best forged by Mental Pain

Thank you for your eloquent reply. Love the story btw. It's obvious you've put alot of thought into this and conducted yourself nobly. However, I don't believe that we're making much headway with this debate, instead being concerned with defining the playing field. I will agree to just disagree on the nature of debate, on the the multi-faceted nature of experience, and relating experience to actual fact. Which leaves the question posed by the initial Topic of Debate: That I believe Character is Best forged by Mental Pain, and it's corollary, that someone who only experiences niceness is ill-prepared for adversity. In my first round, I tried to illustrate (not very well obviously) that one's experience does not make it true. It may be true for him, but it cannot hold up as a measure of the world. In the second round, I tried to correlate how 'knowing' or 'reading' or being 'taught' something doesn't necessarily allow you to understand it's true nature. That is only by EXPERIENCING it. Without experience, you're relying on second-hand accounts. Relaying some of my own personal experiences (I'm trying hard not to 'insult' you with facts and figures), Van Gogh is a favorite artist of mine, and I have a number of his books. However, once I saw a real Van Gogh, 'in the flesh' so to speak, I was almost moved to tears. And that is how it is with mental pain. Mental pain forces you out of your comfort zone. I'm not saying we should cause anyone mental pain. I'm saying it exists; the death of a loved one, a divorce, losing your job. And if it doesn't cause you to crumble, and beat you, you come back stronger and more able to handle that other thing that is thrown at you. Niceness, comfort, familiarity all require minimal or no effort. It requires effort to pull yourself out of an empty bed because your spouse left you, or to go into work the day after a trusted friend stole your big account after you confided in them, or holding your mother's hand as she slowly stopped breathing,,,watching the pulse in her neck slowly , ever so slowly, fade away. These things require effort. And, just like muscles in the body, effort makes you stronger. The greater the effort, the stronger you become. Adversity also makes you humble. It makes you appreciate what you have, your gifts, your accomplishments, your efforts. And it allows you to see through people who don't put in the real effort, but instead seek excuses. You were a drill sergeant...you know this. You seem to think that I think that my experiences make me better than everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. I take people to task BECAUSE I am the same as them. No better. But I didn't take excuses for myself and I don't take excuses from others either. I did it and I'm no better than anyone else, so why can't they ? (that's a rhetorical question, I don't really expect an answer--I understand 'real' impediments to progress; it's lack of effort, laziness, or sense of entitlement that burns me). I eagerly await your response.
Jack Bauer would take Bruce Wayne in a bare-knuckle fist fight.

The resolution states that Jack Bauer would take Bruce Wayne in a bare-knuckle fist fight. This implies that Bruce couldn't use his batman suit/weaponry. Jack is much more used to pressure than Bruce. To start off, I will bring up the fact that Jack Bauer has greater motivation. The entire country rests upon his shoulders, while Bruce Wayne has one corrupt city he's defending. The bigger burden upon Jack's shoulder would force him to fight harder and fight dirty. Jack Bauer would also be more used to the pressure of having to save the entire country, while if Bruce Wayne has only ever had a single city to protect. That would mean that Bruce would be much, much more likely to crack under the pressure. Bruce Wayne relies too much on his Batman suit. While Bruce Wayne relies on his Batman suit and an entire arsenal of weapons and machines, Jack Bauer only uses a pistol and his pure awesome power to stop criminals. In a bare knuckle fight, Bruce, again, would be much more likely to crack due to the loss of his suit. The reliance on the batman suit would also make Bruce the slower fighter, because he is used to having a safety net of body armor. This could also make him a more reckless fighter, because he's used to almost never being hurt. Jack would be the better fighter because he's never had the safety net of a suit of armor, so he would be a much more defensive fighter, which would help him in the long run to outlast his opponent. Jack only has twenty-four hours to stop his criminals, while Bruce has days. This means that Jack will work better under pressure, and have to think on his feet, while Bruce is more used to taking a step back and assessing the situation. This defect of Bruce's would ultimately lead to his down-fall because he wouldn't have the quick reflexes and the ability to think on his feet that Jack has. This just being another upper-hand that Jack has could be the deciding factor of this fight. Overall, in a bare-knuckle fight there would be no possible way of Bruce Wayne coming out the winner. I await my opponent's response and hope for a fun debate. Thank you.