BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is ethically justifiable

I gotta say I'm really, really disappointed Solarman. Your post here is about the same as your flames on the comments sections of debates elsewhere. I thought for sure that you'd have some arguments to make. You COMPLETELY ignored my ENTIRE post. This is unforgivable. To remind you, I argued: 1) that life (or moral significance to me more careful with out language) does not being at conception because it is a logical fallacy to treat an entity like what it shall become instead of like what it is. You did not refute this, but only stated again that life begins at conception which is funny considering that you contradict yourself by saying "There is no magic day when a human being becomes valid". Now, you do say "the cells and spirit are alive from the first microsecond after conception" First, again, you have nothing to support this, and I would be on firm ground to just say 'not-uh". But if by spirit you mean soul, let me ask you something: what do we do with the case of identical twins. In this case, the egg is fertilized and THEN splits. Do they each have half a soul? does only one have a soul? Do they share a soul? All the options are absurd because the position is absurd If you want to argue that life beings at conception, that's fine, but here's a PROTIP: try defending positions instead of just stating them. It might help you out. 2) I defended that even if the fetus is a full person, in similar situations we would not argue that a person must take care of it. Again, this goes unrefuted. 3) pro-life means that sexual reproduction is evil. Since you have kids and probably reproduced sexually, I find your lack of contradiction curious at best and aggravating at worse. Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant. If the fetus isn't a person, and if it is not incumbent on women to carry it, the adoption doesn't matter. I hope for your sake you can do a heck of a lot better solarman. Anyone can troll, but few can back it up.
Abortion is ethically justifiable

Life is Sacred Life begins at conception There are people around the block waiting to adopt A woman who gives birth rather than abort should be given most of the $ 30-40,000 adoption fees as an incentive. There is no magic day when a human being becomes valid Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, taking away states rights on this matter and is based on a lie http://www.cnn.com... Roe should be overturnned from an ethical standpoint Doctors are to DO NO HARM Abortion is the ending of a life the cells and spirit are alive from the first microsecond after conception life is sacred and human beings are WANTED more people is GOOD THING there are TONS of families that cant have kids that want to adopt TONS that is really the bottom line women that have abortions are NOT WARNED of the SPIRITUAL CONSEQUENCES of having an abortion. http://afterabortion.com... It is a very depressing thing to kill an unborn child that was to be someone special we must affirm life if not, we affirm death affirm life SOLARMAN
Abortion is ethically justifiable

This debate can go on ad nauseum, and I have alot of work to do Nonetheless, it is a very important topic You base your premise on a human being not being a humand being until delivery or some magic date like 20 weeks- that is just plain and simple wrong. (1) Since a fetus is not a person, it should not have the rights of one. I completely disagree- life is sacred and begins at conception This is a deeply held belief, and you are entitled to feel otherwise. (2) Abortion can be justified even if it is a person I diagree. abortion is the deliberate taking of a viable human life. It is on the road to tryanny and the devaluing of human life, which leads to infanticide, murder of the infirm and handicapped, and other horrors. (3) If abortion is wrong, then sex is also murder this is just plain stupid. Sex is a sacred act between humans designed to create life. (4) With that in mind, you last post is almost entirely irrelevant. Most of it concerns what you perceive to be the horrors of promiscuous sex. That opinion is largely due to outdated social morays and I vehemently disagree that consensual pleasure-seeking can be morally wrong NO IT IS NOT Abortion is a "right" jealously guarded by those who want to promote and protect IMMORALITY- out of wedlock sex, sex among minors, etc. Without immoral behavior , there is no unwanted preganacy and here is a FUTHER point- abortion is used to cover up ILLEGAL sex between adults and minors all the time - statuatory rape thousands of times a year (5) So, for this argument to work, you must defend that uncommitted, consensual sex is wrong and that this is not intimately connected to abortion that all abortions result from theses practices I STATE THIS ABSOULTELY Uncommitted sex is harmful to the persons involved and society at large the devaluing of sex to a mechanical act is bad for society encouraging cheating spouses and infidelity hurts families and society Finally (6) Why should I think a fetus is a person? Because it is. Life is sacred and the creation of life is sacrosanct You must understand this to be a full human being (7)I chose these arguments for a reason -- they crush the pro-life position. No they do not If one believes the the sacredness of life , and strives to protect those without a voice, one is a much better human being that one who argues for their devaluation and murder. I reiterate my pro-life stance. (1) Overturn Roe - make it a state issue (2) Incentivize motherhood and adoption- make abortion expensive (3) provide services for poor mothers during pregancy (4) Emphasize a moral code that makes sexual morality a HIGH ethic, and promicuity a LOW ethic
Morality: Herd instinct in the individual

So, you argue that you don't like my attitude and that if everyone did what I did, I would be screwed. Also, laws allow me to live... OK, thats all well and good. But, how does me acting egoistically make everyone else do the same. One individual (me) acting the way I have described doesn't tear down the construct of law and order. Also, I don't live in the state of nature, so I don't see how any of that applies. So, the only argument that really functions is that society gives me a lot, so I owe it something in return (being a good citizen). How is this true? Am I bounded by some code of honor that tells me to be good? Do I lose those privileges you spoke of if I act this way and don't get caught? No. So, there is nothing to suggest that I should or need to follow this code. Next, we have this idea that I have to be a good citizen in order to live. In what way is that ever true? Do criminals die when they commit petty theft? Why did humanity exist for centuries if not millenia without laws? I'm pretty sure being a person is not preconditioned on being a citizen of a functioning society. In short, all of your arguments are founded on this idea that I shouldn't act that way because if everyone did that it would be bad. Frankly, me acting egoistically doesn't lead to everyone else doing it. That is the only world in which your consequences happen. The truth is, nothing is binding me to these other-regarding rules of morality except consequences. So, if I can get away with it, why shouldn't I do it if it betters me? You haven't given me any reason other than "because its wrong". That reason is a result of the very rules I am calling into question. Therefore, I can violate morality that I am not binded to without it being "wrong". You haven't proven any reason I should follow these rules. Other people won't follow my actions, therefore I don't cause society to break down into anarchy. Its not wrong because I don't subsrcibe to the very construct that would chastize me.
Morality: Herd instinct in the individual

The law allows yourself to be bettered. With the attitude that you are purporting to advocate, in the state of nature you would be killed extremely quickly, because in the state of nature the woman would retaliate for her purse being stolen. With the kind of attitude that you should have whatever betters you most, you would be attacked pretty quickly on in the state of nature. So advocates of the PRO side here owe a lot to society, and because society allows for them to not only think like this, but to gain an education, and to live safely under society's laws. Because you've accepted the benefits of society, you have to accept the limits of it. Being a citizen is what allows you to be yourself. You can't be yourself when you're dead, and laws are what allow you to live. "Sure, the purse is hers, but I want it. Why shouldn't I take it? If I have reason to believe that I can avoid the consequences and be better off, I should take the purse. There isn't anything compelling me to act 'right' or follow the law. Its just getting in the way of my own self interest." One might argue that your self interest requires you to do good to others, but that could lead to religious levels that I really don't want to get into. The fact is, you're wronging another through your actions, and you have an obligation to not do that. Call it herd instinct if you want, but the fact of the matter is that the rule of law has intrinsic value, and so does the rule of what is right.
Morality: Herd instinct in the individual

I would think that this would be a pretty easy debate on the CON, seeing as nearly everyone subscribes to your stance. That said, what duty is it that I have as a citizen? Even if this right is granted, am I supposed to believe that being a citizen comes before being myself? Your only argument to persuade me to follow these laws is that 'right is right and the law is the law." Why should I personally follow the law? I agree, if no one followed the law, we would have a messed up situation. But, how do you jump from me stealing a purse to societal chaos. Sure, the purse is hers, but I want it. Why shouldn't I take it? If I have reason to believe that I can avoid the consequences and be better off, I should take the purse. There isn't anything compelling me to act 'right' or follow the law. Its just getting in the way of my own self interest. You haven't provided me with any substantive logic as to why I should subscribe to things that hinder my ability to better myself. I just get this "the law is the law" argument. I don't desire chaos, that would not benefit my personal interest. But, how does me looking out for my own interest translate into societal chaos. I don't see the connection.
Morality: Herd instinct in the individual

You should follow moral principles because it is the duty of a citizen to not harm others. While you may believe that you have no obligation to not steal a purse, your obligation is primarily to do what's right. Stealing a purse is not right, because the purse does not belong to you. Therefore, you have an obligation, at least within a society, to not steal a purse. However, I understand that you're trying to make this entirely unwinnable on CON. If I say that you have an obligation to not do things that are wrong, you can just simply say that the definition of wrong has been set in a particular manner by a society, and that definition of wrong is incorrect and harms you. So, nice wording to make this an up-cliff battle for the CON side. Anyway, you also have an obligation to follow the law, no matter what the law is or if the law wrongs you, because the law is the law, and a society in which the rule of law does not exist cannot last and will descend into chaos. But no doubt you think chaos is desirable?
Morality: Herd instinct in the individual

There isn't a substantive reason to act within the constructs of societal morality. Common moral principles like don't murder and don't steal have no bearing on me. I see no reason to follow them because they hinder my ability to better my own interest. If I want your purse, why shouldn't I just take it? Why should I have any obedience to other-regarding moral prescriptions like the Ten Commandments or most laws?
Red is better than Blue!

Based on the fact that my opponent has not advanced the definition of the vague term "better", I submit the following from Dictionary.com:"of superior quality or excellence"Is it of superior quality?If something is of better quality, it has a positive quality that makes it more desirable to use (functions better, stronger, more durable). Blue and red only have a different shade and a different color. Neither is more useful, stronger, functional, etc. than the other. A red tile is no more desirable for usage than the blue one.Rebuttal to My Opponent.1. Since when has red been used to symbolize peace? It is the color of war!2. While it is true that the ocean is not technically blue, love is not colored red. In both cases, society has grown to associate certain colors with things.3. Blue has plenty of meaning. See my final argument to find these meanings.Argument from the Objective Viewpoint. Whether red is better than blue is a question with no consistent, universal answer. It is just as "right" to believe that blue is better than red as it is to believe the opposite. It is not a truth that red is better than blue. It is, rather, a personal opinion. You can not validly claim that red is universally better than blue. Argument from the Subjective Viewpoint and Meaning of Blue. Blue has grown over time to symbolize depth, stability,expertise, piety, sincerity, tranquility, and intellect. Red on the other hand is widely used on danger signs, is a symbol of war (a great vice), and power (absolute power corrupts absolutely). Red has also been shown to raise people's blood pressure.http://www.psychologistworld.com... http://www.color-wheel-pro.com...
Punishing a group for an individual's actions

I have shown that group punishments are often necessary to maintain order, act as an effective deterrent for school-age children, and is actually the preferred method of punishment during class-wide activities. While Con claims superior alternatives exist, he has proved us with none. Seeing as Con has failed in presenting an adequate case and has offered no rebuttal to my previous arguments, I strongly urge a Pro vote! Thanks for reading =D
Punishing a group for an individual's actions

I thank swimmer825 for his prompt reply. 1. Necessary for Order My opponent claims there are always witnesses to classroom wrongdoing, so blanket punishment is unnecessary. However, anyone who has ever been a student understands that ‘tattling' is not a common occurrence and students are often unwilling to disclose that information. When a serious wrong has been committed and some punishment must be administered, it would be irresponsible for a teacher to ignore the incident and thus encourage future wrongdoing. Con also states that the use of group punishments negatively influence class interest and respect for the teacher. Firstly, I am only advocating the use of class-wide punishments following serious wrongs or when neglecting to do so would create greater problems. Secondly, a student's frustration lies equally on the guilty student, increasing the likelihood that they will do what they can to stop future misbehavior (see 2). Thirdly, allowing misbehavior to go unpunished is the quickest way to lose one's authority and is far more damaging to a teacher's image than enforcing class-wide restrictions. 2. Acts as a Deterrent Con claims his own experiences have shown class-wide punishments to be ineffective deterrents. Despite the fact that my own experiences as both a student and a teacher would disagree, he is also at odds with the social sciences. According to both Piaget and Kohlberg, the actions of school-age children are driven largely by obedience to authority members and self-preservation [1][2]. As I observed numerous times with my class, group punishments effectively decreased misbehavior by appealing to my students' sense of self-protection and respect for my status in the classroom. 3. The Class as a Unit My opponent suggests teachers punish individual trouble-makers some time after the class has completed its group activity. However, an established trait of effective teachers is their immediate and decisive response to misbehavior [3]. Punishing a student in the future for some wrong they are doing now lessens the impact of the reprimand and does nothing to stop their actions in the present. By delivering the penalty right away, teachers can halt the misbehavior and retain control of the situation. ::Rebuttals:: My opponent has not addressed his original point on punishment ineffectiveness. I will consider this argument dropped until it is addressed again. ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://faculty.plts.edu... 3. http://www.sjsu.org...
Punishing a group for an individual's actions

I will start off by addressing my opponents arguments. 1. In a classroom setting of about 30 students there has to be at least one person who saw the incident who could report the perpetrator to the teacher. Also my opponent said that allowing acts to be unpunished would lead to more misbehavior, however I have noticed that in a classroom setting the cause for misbehavior is lack of respect or lack of interest in the class. Likewise is the correlation that i have noticed in classes where group punishment is used, when group punishment is used the majority of students respect the teacher less and have less overall interest. 2. I am in multiple classes where group punishment is used and it does not serve as a deterrent to potential misbehavior. If anything people find it amusing to have the entire class be punished with them. Also at a middle school or even high school level for that matter the advice of a peer not to misbehave has little effect. 3. I understand that classes many time act as a single unit but immediate punishment is not always the best answer, perhaps in that kind of situation it would be best to punish the students misbehaving once you are not moving between class rooms or at an assembly.
Punishing a group for an individual's actions

Thanks to swimmer825 for starting this debate. As a former middle school teacher, I was often the one punishing my entire class for the actions of a few students. Now is my chance to defend myself haha. My stance is that it is sometimes right to punish a group of people for the actions of an individual or multiple individuals. Given the framing of Con's position, I will limit my arguments to an educational setting (within the U.S.). There seems to be only one word that may pose an issue here, so I offer the following definition: - Right: suitable, appropriate [1] I'll start with arguments in favor of my position, followed by a rebuttal of Con's case. 1. Certain actions (e.g. throwing objects, assaulting others) are absolutely unacceptable within the classroom and must always lead to reprimands. Since it is impossible for a teacher to identify the perpetrator of every misdeed, it is sometimes necessary to punish the entire class as a sign of the action's inappropriateness. To allow the act to go unpunished only encourages students to perform it when the teacher is unaware. 2. If students are aware that misdeeds will lead to class-wide punishments, they are encouraged to do their part to prevent such misdeeds. For example, if a student witnesses their classmate doing something wrong, they are more likely to try and stop them if they may be punished as well. The alternative results in an every-man-for-himself attitude that does little to maintain good conduct. 3. A class must often act as a single unit (e.g. moving between rooms, assembly functions). During these times, it can be impossible to punish individual students without disrupting the entire activity. Imagine trying to reprimand three talkative students while trying to move a class of 30 down the hall. A teacher cannot divide their attention in these circumstances without causing additional problems, and thus must penalize the class as a whole. ::Rebuttals:: Con claims class-wide punishments are ineffective because the problem student doesn't care about the repercussions on them or their classmates. However, such indifference doesn't mean the student should go unpunished. Certain acts must be shown to be unacceptable, regardless of whether or not the guilty party can be identified. We've got 5 rounds so I'll stop here for now. I await my opponent's response. ::References:: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Punishing a group for an individual's actions

My opinion is that punishing a group of people as a whole for the actions of an individual or multiple individuals is never the right choice especially in an educational setting. My stance on this issue is based off of previous experiences as a student when multiple times a teacher punished the entire class for the actions of an individual. I believe that this form of punishment is ineffective because the majority of the cases the person or persons who misbehaved simply did not care about the repercussions of their actions. Also the person or persons who misbehave believe that there is nothing wrong with the entire class being punished because they would be punished anyway so why shouldn't the rest of the class do it with them.
Abortion in the US

I thank the response. Extend arguments. Refutations: R1: Abortions increase backstreet abortions Before I refute this, I will layout a backstreet abortion. "Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians. Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training." (1) "In 1972, there were only 32 maternal deaths related to illegal abortion, not the thousands proclaimed by pro-abortionists.ï¿½" (1) Therefore it is not that dangerous, and or not as dangerous as you imply. But, this states these illegal abortions prior to legalization was rare. (2) Now, deterrence: This theory is if you increase punishment and consequences basic psychology leads us to belive we will not do it. (3) This being said a ban = punishment for abortion = less likely to do it. R2: Bans trample womens rights Thus us a misconception. The constitution has NO NONE ZERO wording in abortion. (4) the constitution gives rights, and as it has no wording the states ought to choose. We are not arguing a federal ban! Rather what ought to be done. As in round 2 I proved a fetus is a human, then killing it violates the 14th amendments right to life. (4) no right to an abortion. R3: A fetus has no rights Sure, currently under roe v. Wade (if you bring this up I will attack it) there is no legal right to an abortion, but in reality they should. They are humans, and killing them deprives them of life, therefore ought to have legal rights, and technically does. (5) Vote con. Sources: http://www.physiciansforlife.org... (1) http://www.abortionfacts.com... (2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(psychology) (3) http://law2.umkc.edu... (4) http://angel115707.hubpages.com... (5)
Abortion in the US

Is my opponent arguing on whether or not abortion should be illegal? I ask this in order to fully understand what my burden for this debate will be as the contender. With this said, the PRO will move on toward the iteration of its contentions. I may preface a bit considering the limited time that I have remaining, but I will continue to argue my points through the course of the debate. 1. Bans on abortion increase illegal abortions. Bans on abortions do nothing to stop abortions. The only thing it truly does is drive abortions to occur underground, where women are placed in conditions unsafe in comparison to regular, legal abortions. This would be detrimental to the state of the people in our American society.2. Bans trample women's rights.In addition to the hinderance of a private decision of a woman, a woman is not allowed to make her own decisions with what may go on with her body. 3. A fetus ought not be endowed with rights.Not only does a fetus lack most of the distinguishing features of a human being at its stage of its development, but the fact that it is not a part of social contract means it does not have rights.(I'm sorry for the shallow statement. Evidence and arguments will be posted later)