BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes that there is no god

asalaamu alaikum ................you all know that this a topic that is so much tough.I should not waste my time and i should move my topic..... First tell me that if there is a creator of the world then who is the creater of that creater of the world who has made all the creations in the world.....and if there is a creater of the creator of world then who is the creator of creator of the creator of the world............and this creativity of the creator has made me crazy.........???
This house believes that there is no god

Pro Says ;".so people who make robots should also be called GODS...........we are also saying that god is helping us............then internet is also helping us then we should also call internet a GOD" My Response to that is not at all. Your understanding of who God is is very misconstrued. Having an attribute that God has (I.e. being able to create) doesn't make you a "God". We has humans "create" robots out of preexisting things whereas God created the universe from literally nothing. I want to stress the fact that having an attribute is not the same as being God, this goes right along with your "helping" illustration. Why this house believes there is a God. Is because all the available evidence points in that direction. There is no greater piece of evidence than Jesus Christ, who was God but came down in the form of a man. Now i know what you're going to say "Virgin births never happen!" well if one believes something can come from a literal nothing than they should be open to the idea that something could come from nothing in a womb. But as a believer in God this idea is not even close to being far fetchd since God is the one who creates all laws of science. Jesus not only claimed to be God but also proved it by living a morally perfect life and more importantly died and rose again after he claimed that he would. He was also seen by many many eye witnesses after his death so this wasn't a solitary act that could have been made up by one person. The bible as we call it is eye witness testimony of events, people, places, and times that can easily be historically checked and time and time again prove to be reliable.
A New Way

I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely, nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs. If we designed a web like politic system with no super power, the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient, productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us, tell me you don't want to see your fellow man run. Now please prove me wrong, poke holes that is the whole point of this idea, so we can put down the sticks we bludgent eachother with like chimps an help eachother understand. Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want. to summarize i want you to tell me why this wont work because if you cant theres a chance it can. If it can i want my people to have the best shot at this life as a species and individually that the laws of our universe will allow.
A New Way

I find your use of sarcasm both inappropriate and condescending. I ask you to please stop speaking in this manner. Also, I ask that the voters take note of Pro's behavior. I never said that we are the greatest that we can be. However, we have a system that works well. It's not as if we must start over in order to move forward. We can propose laws and constitutional amendments. I believe that the people are still the rulers of this nation, for we are the ones that put politicians into office, and we are the ones who buy the corporations products and use their services. If you want education reform and humane population control (I would also like to point out you have not yet explained how we would go about doing this) then you need to start a movement. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed. There is no reason for you to have "A New Way" at all, no reason for a new nation. Also, as for location, Antarctica wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to farm or even stay outside for long periods of time. Now, maybe you could deal with that, but most people will not want to deal with it with you. Also, the island you mentioned is still controlled by Japan. You would not be independent, you would still be subject to Japanese law. Also, so the voters know, this is this island- http://desertedplaces.blogspot.com... Now, does that seem like an ideal spot for a utopia? I think not. "we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one" I am sure that everyone realizes that the United States government doesn't kill people who speak up for change in government. Enough said on that. There is a reason that some people have more than others. Its not like people just magically end up with money. And still, everyone in America is doing pretty well as compared to other countries, especially countries with communism and other failing forms of government. Please, be logical. There is no way this can work. Also, I would love to hear how you will prevent anyone from hurting or killing.
A New Way

I am really not trying to be rude here, but some parts of your last argument were difficult to understand. May I please ask that over the next rounds you make it easier to understand, both for me, and the voters. There are several reasons that this will not work. First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years. You also suggest "somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think" and "isn't going to invade someone" so, what we need to do is find a place on the world, that is uninhabited, and not controlled by any nation. There is literally only one place that fits that description, and I don't think you are going to like it. Its Antarctica. How are you going to convince the leaders of a country to give up their power? How do you know this will even work? What you are suggesting, is just not possible. As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is. The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years. The thing is, your system is unnecessary, and will not work.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Thanks to Tidin for the challenge. I hope this will remain fun for both of us! My position is simple: Women should be allowed to choose abortion as a means to terminate their pregnancy (except late term) without state or federal intervention. Since the fetus is an extension of the mother and dependent on her for life, it is the mothers right to choose what she plans to do with her own body. It is her civil right. - REBUTTALS - P1) "In the case of forced sex, abortion should be legal. The woman made no willful decision (let's call it a contract) to enter into the sexual relationship. " I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion? Or what if the condom broke during consensual intercourse? She obviously did not intend to get pregnant and took the necessary measures to keep herself from being impregnated. Would she be allowed to have an abortion? P2) "However, if you do willfully and knowingly enter into a sexual contract, you should be held responsible for your actions. Note, I draw a line of distinction between willfully entering the act and desiring every consequence of that act. " Even with necessary precautions, there is always the chance of being impregnated. In no way does that deter someone from having sex since it is a natural desire. But with this type of policy in place, only more harm would ensue. Example 1) Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death. Example 2) 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves the destitute and powerless. [1] P3) "Therefore, the unborn child should have the protection of "do no harm", just like everyone else. " "Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is: "Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity [2] A fetus does not fit under these requirements and therefore does not have the same 'protection' under law. Sources will be in the Comments section.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Big hanks to Annhasle for accepting my request to debate. This is my first so go easy :P Key Terms: D1) Abortion: Termination of pregnancy. D2) Ought: Should .... D3) Illegal: Forbidden by law D5) Forced Sex: Involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent P = Progression H = Hypothetical Productive: P1) In the case of forced sex, abortion should be legal. The woman made no willful decision (let's call it a contract) to enter into the sexual relationship. P2) However, if you do willfully and knowingly enter into a sexual contract, you should be held responsible for your actions. Note, I draw a line of distinction between willfully entering the act and desiring every consequence of that act. H1) To expound on act and consequence, let's say that you take a 10lbs weight and throw it up into the air in a crowded room. You aren't trying to hit anyone; you are just kind of curious what will happen when it hits the ground. But, to your horror, some idiot walks underneath the weight as it falls and is killed by it. Did you intend to kill him? Of course not. Does the unwilling woman intend to get pregnant? Not in the least. Did you intend to throw the weight into the air? Yes, you did. Did she intend to have sex? Most certainly. Did you know that it was possible someone would walk underneath it? Yep. Did she know that pregnancy is caused by sex? Yessir. Both should live with the consequence of their willful actions. Therefore, the unborn child should have the protection of "do no harm", just like everyone else. Closing: Before going any further, I would like to know my opponents reasoning, in order to properly understand what I am debating against.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

"It does not matter whether your intentions are pure. " That's illogical. In almost all areas of law, intentions dictate the punishment or if the defendant is persecuted at all (mens rea). [1] "Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point. " When abstinence only programs were being taught, the use of contraceptives dropped along with the standards for sexual education where possibilities of STD's and pregnancy was not taught. This caused teenage pregnancy to increase by 3%. [2] "By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life. " By having sex, she forfeits the right to decide her own procedures or what's right for her own body? Having intercourse is not the same as accepting a fetus to form within your body, and the right to choose should never be taken away based upon federal intervention. The government has no right to dictate what procedure you should have -- it's neither their right or responsibility. "Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy. " And yet, due to the consequences of implementing such a policy, it would be unwise. The willful taking away of a woman's right because she had sex is nonsensical and unnecessary. As said before (and never refuted) it is her civil right. "Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder. " The eviction of a clump of cells is not murder. It's a part of her body since it's dependent on her to live and is connected through the placenta and umbilical cord. She has the right to choose if she wants to be pregnant or not since it is ultimately her body and her fetus. Simply because it could become a child is not a viable argument since the sperm that is ejaculated during masturbation could have been children. It's an arbitrary distinction. - Conclusion - Since it is her body, the woman should have the right to choose what procedures she wants to go through. Would you allow the government to step in and tell you "You *have* to get your kidney removed"? Same principle. Abortions can save a womans life and reduce the chances of poverty (as shown in the first round). It's her civil right to decide what is best for her body and since the fetus is dependent on her for life and is connected to her, then it is not in fact a separate entity and is not protected by the laws put forward by Pro. To make abortions illegal would be illogical and almost impossible to enforce. This wouldn't decrease the number of abortions but in fact, it would only make the procedures less safe. [3] There would be more poor woman thrown into jail because they could not take care of their fetus and decided to do what was best for them which is not a just policy.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

"If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all." E6) It does not matter whether your intentions are pure. As explained in P2 & H1, there is a distinction between willfully entering the act (sex) and desiring every consequence the act (baby, venereal diseases). Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point. Otherwise, as I've said before, everything else is mere details. "However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body." E7) By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life. "Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase." E8) Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy. An anarchist, minianarchist, democratic, etc. system could apply this in the way property rights are dealt with (suing), and, the way they would deal with any other murder case. I admit that this would be tricky in an anarchist system, and if I had more character space I would write more thoroughly on the subject (where we might actually agree). "The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection." E9) It is not a law, it is a negative right. Negative rights are timeless, meaning, a cavemen had the same rights as we do today. In other words, the right to not be harmed is a negative right. Therefor, the fetus does have the same right to not be harmed. For example, A 100 years ago we couldn't evict the baby without causing it harm (aggression). Today we have the technology to not harm the fetus if it is removed from the host (non-aggression -> aggression). A 100 years from now we could have the ability to keep the fetus going (viable solution against abortion). Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder. Conclusion: My position is based upon voluntary accepting the contract from having sex, by engaging in sex itself. Furthermore, the contract should be kept, just as though, in any other contractual agreement. If the contract is in anyway breached, a measure of punishment should be held against the person. For example, a man, wanting to keep the child, could sue as explained in P4. THANKS
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Thanks, Tidin. > "E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action. " If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all. However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body. Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase. >"O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term"). " However, late term abortions are when a woman chooses to abort the fetus when it could live outside the body [1]. Therefore, the baby would have the protection under law since it is a separate entity. A fetus is entirely dependent on the woman for life and, for reasons stated before, does not have the protection of 'due no harm' nor property rights. >" If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host. " The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection. >"Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse. " Except the fetus is a part of the woman's body and her choice. And simply engaging in sexual intercourse does not mean accepting the fetus, for either the man or woman. Sexual intercourse could be entirely for pleasure and not for the creation of a fetus. >"E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human. " Regardless, it is a clump of cells attached to the mother. In the future, if she *chooses* to have the baby, then it will become a human. But that is neither here nor there. >"O3) Should it be legally. .. " Depends on the fetus. If it could live outside the womb, then it should receive protection.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Thanks, Annhasle Neg Rebuttals: "Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead?" E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action. "The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then?" O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term"). "Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice." P3) This is different than abortion, it is evicting. We agree that a woman's right to her property is held higher, in value, than the life of the fetus. If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host. Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse. "Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder." E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human. "Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility." P4) I argue that the loss of a lifetime with a mans child is on par, or outweighs the 9 months of pregnancy the woman has to endure. Therefor, a man should then be able to sue the woman claiming 'loss of consortium' [1]. "Simply because it is currently in..." O3) Should it be legally acceptable for a woman not to seek justice, by her standards, if a person murdered a woman's unborn child? what if she intended to keep it? Love the debate, =) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...