BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

"My Response: The CI only can be applied to humans because we have: A) Free will, B) Intellect, and C) have some sort of moral conscience. Also, you are referring to necessity, i.e. survival, rather then morality or justice. The resolution asks for the value of justice not necessity. On a different note, you have not explained how abortion is therefore justified." But why should any of those things give more value to life? Furthermore, you have essentially negated your own argument. Fetuses do not have free will, intellect, or a moral conscience. "My Response: Well, good question. However he is by far the greatest of all enlightenment philosophers when it comes to ethics. Oh and Kant is very interesting, you should read more of him." So you're arguing not from logic, but from the moral opinions of one man. No matter how hihgly regarded a philosopher may be, they are still opinions. Unless backed up by logic, opinions are just opinions. "My Response: Good, I was actually going to use that argument. Thx for bringing it up. Women also, are effected by abortion. 70% of women after an abortion go through some mental trauma. The women must know the consequences and say NO." It is true that women often suffer emotional anguish from this decision. But that does not change the fact that it is their decision to make. More often than not, the emotional consequences of choosing an abortion are not greater than the practical consequences of having a baby.
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

"But all animal life is dependant upon some form of killing in order to survive. Lifeforms must devour other lifeforms. Should we not kill and eat living animals and plants simply because we ourselves wish to live? That would be contradictory. We cannot live without doing so. While I realize that elective abortion is not a matter of physical survival, my statements nonetheless show that Kant's statement is not valid (or at least not universally true.)" My Response: The CI only can be applied to humans because we have: A) Free will, B) Intellect, and C) have some sort of moral conscience. Also, you are referring to necessity, i.e. survival, rather then morality or justice. The resolution asks for the value of justice not necessity. On a different note, you have not explained how abortion is therefore justified. "So life should be due to any living thing, no matter what they have done, on the basis that I would like to live?" My Response: You don't understand the maxim. Kant goes on to say innocent vs. guilty is different. Anyone guilty of a capital crime deserves death, because by the criminal committing murder, they have universalized the action themselves, and therefore deserve death. However that's a totally different topic. Essentially, going to your question all innocents have the right to life. "But who is Kant to dictate morals? What proof is provided that these moral statements are of value? I admit that I have not read much Kant, as I find it rather trying." My Response: Well, good question. However he is by far the greatest of all enlightenment philosophers when it comes to ethics. Oh and Kant is very interesting, you should read more of him. "Furthermore, ask any woman who has had an abortion and she will tell you that there is no pleasure involved." My Response: Good, I was actually going to use that argument. Thx for bringing it up. Women also, are effected by abortion. 70% of women after an abortion go through some mental trauma. The women must know the consequences and say NO. =============================================================================== *My opponent has failed to actually negate the resolution.* This is a clear Pro ballet. Case: Use maxims one and teo as my contentions for the round. I. Maxim 1: Universality -Abortion is killing -Killing can not be universalized -Therefore, abortion is unjust II. Maxim 2: Means and ends. -Abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers end -Violates 2nd maxim -Therefore, Its unjust
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

"I. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Essentially, the first way Kant tells us how to determine a just action is universality. This means that whatever action you do must be able to become universalized. I.e. Killing is wrong because you yourself/people you love should not be killed. Therefore killing another person cannot be universalized." But all animal life is dependant upn some form of killing in order to survive. Lifeforms must devour other lifeforms. Should we not kill and eat living animals and plants simply because we ourselves wish to live? That would be contradictory. We cannot live without doing so. While I realize that elective abortion is not a matter of physical survival, my statements nonetheless show that Kant's statement is not valid (or at least not universally true.) "Now referring this maxim to your questions. You ask why should life be due to anyone? Obviously, you yourself would like to live, me also, and the members of the debate community (unless your suicidal). We all look for survival. Therefore, universalize the action of life." So life should be due to any living thing, no matter what they have done, on the basis that I would like to live? "II. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Kant then goes on to use this maxim. He is saying that an action is just if it doesn't use a living creature as a means to an end. A person is always an end in and of itself. Therefore abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers own pleasure of getting rid of a child." But who is Kant to dictate morals? What proof is provided that these moral statements are of value? I admit that I have not read much Kant, as I find it rather trying. Furthermore, ask any woman who has had an abortion and she will tell you that there is no pleasure involved.
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

As a fore note I apologize for mixing up your gender =( That's embarrassing. However, on to the debate. ================================================================================= From your definition of "unjust", I infer that you would define justice as giving what is due. But why should life be due to anyone or anything? Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity"? My Response: Yes, I am referring to giving what is due. Therefore, unjust is not giving whats due. Simple questions you ask, and can be answered according to Kant's Categorical Imperative (Enlightenment formula for justice/morality) The Categorical Imperative can be broken up into 3 main maxims (and a 4th, but that's not used often) I'll use the first main 2. I. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Essentially, the first way Kant tells us how to determine a just action is universality. This means that whatever action you do must be able to become universalized. I.e. Killing is wrong because you yourself/people you love should not be killed. Therefore killing another person cannot be universalized. Now referring this maxim to your questions. You ask why should life be due to anyone? Obviously, you yourself would like to live, me also, and the members of the debate community (unless your suicidal). We all look for survival. Therefore, universalize the action of life. II. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Kant then goes on to use this maxim. He is saying that an action is just if it doesn't use a living creature as a means to an end. A person is always an end in and of itself. Therefore abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers own pleasure of getting rid of a child.
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

By the way, I am a "she". I probably should have mentioned that before. Anyway, on to the debate. From your definition of "unjust", I infer that you would define justice as giving what is due. But why should life be due to anyone or anything? Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity"?
Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

Definitions: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion - The intentional, systematic extermination of an unborn child for reasons other then health precautions.(E.g. death of the mother) Unjust - Not giving due For the first round, I will simply provide a value structure. (This is optional, however if my opponent wishes to make one as well, he can) Value: Justice Value Criterion: Protection the Sanctity of Innocent Life The thesis of this case protecting the sanctity of innocent life is a paramount criterion for achieving justice, as specified in the resolution. When innocent life is not being protected then the government is not upholding its duty. Also, the practice of abortion violates both governmental and medial moral guidelines. Therefore, unwanted pregnancy abortion does not protect innocent life and thus should be should be illegal in the US. *I will let my opponent make his contentions first. (Since he is guest) Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy ^^
All your base are belong to us.

Belong: •To be the property of [1] Property: •That which a person owns [2] ::Contention 1:: I do not own the base. The first sentence of my opponent's argument is "You do not own the base." By definition, the base cannot belong to me if I do not own it. Presumably, PRO owns the base because he "took it from Dictionary.com," and it that case all my base are belong to him, not us. ::Contention 2:: I cannot alter the base. PRO states "Upon accepting this debate CON must agree with the Framework." If I owned the framework, or base, I could alter it. I can't, therefore it is not mine. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
All your base are belong to us.

============ Framework ============ Base: Fundamental principle or groundwork, framework of the round. Us: We debaters, my opponent and I. ============ Arguments ============ You do not own the base. I took it from Dicitonary. com [1]. But even they do not own the base, this is because they have not copyrighted the words I used. So base belongs to all. Also the base of the round is not mutually exclusive, it is used by both because its in the compulsory framework, therefore accepted by both parties, and being accepted it becomes the property of both of us. As we can see all my opponents Base are belong to us. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

Well as my fellow debater has forfeited this round. I guess I will show you more evidence why pit bulls should be outlawed in city's with this peace of evidence from this site http://www.cincinnati.com... When I started my career, the most common dog-bite injuries were from German shepherds and occasionally retrievers. These injuries were almost always provoked, such as food-related or stepping on the dog, and in almost every instance, the dog reacted with a single snap and release " essentially a warning shot. There were no pack attacks. Starting about 25 years ago, my colleagues and I started to see disturbingly different types of injuries. Instead of a warning bite, we saw wounds where the flesh was torn from the victim. There were multiple bite wounds covering many different anatomical sites. The attacks were generally unprovoked, persistent and often involved more than one dog. In every instance the dog involved was a pit bull or a pit bull mix. Meaning that pit bulls and pit bull mixes are getting more and more violent and doing more and more damage to people. See that is why pit bulls need to be out lawed in city's there would be to much risk to peoples safety and more importantly kids safety
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

since pit bulls are hunting dogs when they see a small thing moving fast it sees it as something to catch as they were mainly used before to hunt mainly large things like bears and bulls and other large animals but they were also used to chase small animals like rabbits so the hunters could shoot them. "Deep down the dog has the fight or flight instinct just like every living being" There fight or flight instinct can be activated if it is stressed I mean the amount of times a human puts a dog into it's fight of flight response is really high. And in a city if it gets out and goes on the street and guess what could happen could nearly get hit by a car it could get yelled at for stealing food or the worst thing that could happen (And get can get worst if it was already in a stressful situation is it goes to a park and a bunch of kids look are are like oh a new thing to play on then guess what since it got out and kids are playing on and with it bites one. Hell if there is allot of them it could KILL one or more of them and if you say that the kids deserved it and the dog is the victim. Kids don't know any better there kids! I mean all in all in a city a pit bull could do more harm then anywhere else with the amount of stress I dog can get in a city even more so if said dog is alone and is lost
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

Many people in my town have pitbulls, they are the majority of the dogs here. None have ever attacked worse than a good snipping. So are all of them just the "good eggs." We complain that the dogs attack? Do you know why pitbulls are "vicious?" We made them that way. They were bred to be sheepdogs. Then they were put into pits and taught to attack bulls. Pit- bulls. This is also where dog fights originated. We make things to dangerous then we complain, and we eliminate. Do we want to destroy everything that can hurt us? Or teach them to care, teach them to love. The only other option is live in a bubble, because everything is dangerous in one way or another. Also with the pedophiles, many NEVER see a day in prison because the child may not be believed or is so scarred they never speak up. The dog no matter what dies. Many of the attacks are deserved because the child hurt or harmed the dog, yet the dog gets blamed. Deep down the dog has the fight or flight instinct just like every living being, its just their nature. Educate yourself dude. Thank you.
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

Okay you are comparing us outlawing pit bulls to white people murdering banning and going to war with Asians? I don't see how that's relevant. Also you where saying we put a dog down if it attacks a child and you said that pedophiles walk? no they don't they mostly go to jail unless the person did not do anything to the child and let me tell you this pedophiles do not last long in prison okay they die pretty quickly. Now you may try to say that since it is the prisoners putting the pedophile then it is not the same as putting a dog down but in the end they are both dieing, And to make things worst for the dog is the fact that U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population that makes pit bulls he SECOND most deadly dog breed in the U.S second to the rottweiler, Now you may say that the pit bulls that kill those people are just the "Bad eggs" of the pit bulls but in the end it comes down to this pit bulls are just to dangerous to be allowed in city's
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

We can agree that a breed is a race correct? Well, we as humans don't ban the other race, we did and we saw how that worked out. They are the same as us, they speak a different language they look different from us. Can we agree some one asian is all of those in comparison to whites here in American. Yes I do think we can. So isn't it the same with them as with us. We go to war, we fight we aren't perfectly nice to each other easier. People murder people, people attack people, ban people why don't we. As a friend once stated, a dog can scar a child for life, we put the dog down, but a pedophile can scar a child for life and we don't put them down. All are created equal and deserve to be treated equally.
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

The thing about pit bulls people don't know is that. Today"s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog"a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head, meaning that your pet pit bull was really made to grab something hold on to it and not let go. And its true if a pit bull bites you and holds it will NOT let go unless you can force it. Also pit bulls are known to go on violent rampages. Infact here is a victims report on what a pit bull did. "One literally went for my leg and [the] other was trying to jump on top of me, but I was hitting them, and I was punching them," Janelle Manning, 24, told CBS New York. "They both weren't letting go, once they got a hold of my leg." and you know what the same pit bulls attacked to two other people on the same bloody rampage and hear is a report on one of the other two. Because of her leg injuries, Manning now struggles to walk up and down stairs, CBS reports. "These dogs were, like, trained to kill; trained to hurt and viciously attack people," she said. So yes i think pitbulls should be outlawed in cities
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

Pitbulls can be loving and caring animals, like any dog. If we ban them what stops us from banning the next breed, that could potentially hurt us? Isn't everything in life dangerous? Look around we ban what we find dangerous, but couldn't the air we breathe be dubbed dangerous? I know 5 beautiful pitbulls. All live together, and none have attacked each other or me. I am interested to hear what you have to say. Don't ban what was created for a reason. Thank you.
Pitbulls being outlawed in cities.

Well my fellow debater has forfeited the last two rounds so I will not provide more evidence to why they should be outlawed instead I am looking at you voters to say that pit bulls are to dangerous to be allowed in city's. Okay I am not saying they are bad like all animals they have a risk to be dangerous but from the evidence I have shown you can not say pit bulls are completely nice and they need to be outlawed allowed in city's where someone could get hurt or die I mean look at what I have shown you these last few rounds. Well that is all I have to say goodbye
The Moral Argument Proves God

Thank you for the debate. Evolution indeed has something to do with morals. Morals stem from emotion, which stems from the brain, which has evolved based on experience. For example, you see a kid drowning in a pool. The obviously moral thing to do is try to save the kid but the want to save the kid comes from a powerful emotion of panic, fear, anxiety etc. These have evolved over time. Do you think if a Neanderthal man saw a kid drowning in a river they would feel exactly what we would feel today? No of course not because the brain has evolved. Acting morally or immorally stems from emotions in which a person may feel at a particular time. Of course though in order for morals to develop, such emotions would already have to be a part of humans and as we all know it is a scientific FACT that emotions stem from the brain and such emotions have developed through evolution. In other words, morality goes hand in hand with evolution. This article reiterates this point and furthermore explains why morality or the products of morality all stem from the brain. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com...) I look forward to your response.
The Moral Argument Proves God

Humans have the ability to behave morally. We feel bad when we do something wrong, we want to help others who are not as wealthy as us. Why do we feel bad when we see starving children in Africa? This does not have roots in evolution. Evolution is about your survival, not the person across the world. Most philosophers agree that if God does not exist; then objective moral values do not exist. The problem for the atheist is; objective moral values do exist. You can deny it, but deep inside, you know it.
The Government should abolish the term limits of politicians.

Okay... So I don't understand why my opponent is mentioning such racist arguments... It is very dismannered for the opponent to insult me in this debate... I think the my opponent should elaborate on the issues on the debate, not me... actually. In this round, I'll not mention my arguments 'til my opponent will mention 'real arguments' on the debate Thanks for watching this debate online users P.S. If the opponent writes these kinds of dumb things again in his rounds I'll try to report him
The Government should abolish the term limits of politicians.

The reason why I am opposing this motion. .. is simple. It leads to unbalance of the congress(between parties) or the government itself. For example, Park Jung-Hee, the former president of the Republic of Korea(I am the citizen of that country) made the Yoosin Amendment, which indicates that there is no limits of presidency. This led to some deadly dictatorship society and demos of citizens and students. This instance shows how lethal it would be if you limit the terms of politicians. We should let the term limits of politicians.