BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Better than Deserved

I. Preface I greatly appreciate GCL for debating this topic, I hope I gave her the debate she wanted. I feel like giving her one big hug now. II. Conclusion To summarise, my major points of contention are: Existence is not intrinsically good We are unfairly punished for actions not our own God's law, and standards are arbitrary and unfairly unreachable Failing to reach these standards leads to a punishment and torment that is very easily arguably worse than existence We were brought into existence against our wishes We ought to expect more of ourselves, and value our rights where God seems to impinge on them. After all if God is benevolent, then it is only fair and logical. III. Closing I will leave you with a couple of quotes: "We need men with moral courage to speak and write their real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very death." -Robert Green Ingersoll "To really be free, You need to be free in the mind." Alexander Loutis
Better than Deserved

Well, since this is the last round it is time for conclusion. Thank you my opponent for this time in debating this topic with me. I would answer all of what you had in your 3rd round but to obey my own rules, we can discuss in comment section or PM if you'd like? In concluding though, I have stated how "better than deserved" is nothing more but a Biblical belief and not of something to disregard myself or put myself down. The intent here is to define the Gospel of Christ and to show that through humility one can acknowledge goodness, but still acknowledge who we as people are; sinful. I have done my best to explain the importance of understanding how we fall and are nothing more but sinful creatures and that we deserve nothing more than God's wrath in hell, but that Christ came and died and rose to give us life so we didn't have to do a thing to earn God's unmerited favor (grace), it was freely given. So for this, in the most positively humbling way, this is why anyone who would say, "better than deserved" is to acknowledge who we are as humans and who God is! Thanks again to my opponent for taking the time to debate me on this! Best wishes to you! :) Blessings!
women today have too much rights

we definitely need to get rid of all of the special rights, laws and privileges that women currently have over men e.g. -VAWA law -Don't have to register for Select Service -Female criminals serve less jail times for same crimes -Affirmative actions & quotas for women -Tons of "women only" stuff, like: "women only" scholarships and Women's Business Ownership Assistance -Far more research and funding are going into women's health than men's. -Education system favor female over male -Women can opt out of parental responsibilities but men can't -Bias divorce laws etc..etc.. a few of many..many.. examples Source: http://www.mediaradar.org...... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...-... http://www.quotaproject.org... http://www.collegescholarships.org...... http://www.scholarships.com...... http://www.federalgrantswire.com...-... http://www.businessweek.com...... http://www.theatlantic.com...... http://www.illinoisloop.org...
women today have too much rights

this is the last argument so i'll make it short "Let's take an example of the middle east, where women are not allowed to drive, they are not allowed to show too much of skin which means covering their entire body even though it may be uncomfortable." i'm sorry but you're wrong, the only country that bans women from driving is Saudi Arabia. please check, how many countries are there in the middle east? as for cover MOST of the body, it's a matter of religion. "mostly in the west" no that is not true either, most countries have women only rights too. feminism used to be a movement to achieve equality between the genders. i'm okay with that. but now what do most people think when they hear the word feminist? that's right, women who thinks men are inferior. now i don't think that we should go back to suppressing women. but as i said before feminism is about bringing equality to the genders. so i think we should remove the women only laws, if there are men only laws we should remove them too.
women today have too much rights

You have brought in the aspect of literature into this argument, and correctly used the word 'modern'. There is a higher preference to have a woman,as a protagonist,in a story, as you say. If we take a look at the works of literature in the past ( dating back to many centuries ago), having a man as a protagonist was much preferred, women were barely involved in the stories, like Hercules et cetera. Don't you think that a shift of preference is more in accordance with justice rather than a simple 'hostility to boyishness'. It's only right to give women their identity back, to truly bring out their individuality. Even then, it is simply not true that women, in general, have 'too many rights'. Let's take an example of the middle east, where women are not allowed to drive, they are not allowed to show too much of skin which means covering their entire body even though it may be uncomfortable. This is not the case with men in this specific region. These 'rights' have been given only to women mostly in the west, the existence of additional rights will try to heal the scarred mind of our past and bring in a new judgement of women in general. Thus, we cannot complain than women have more rights than than they deserve, in fact they deserve more.
women today have too much rights

Well, I cannot disagree that laws which give women the advantage over men exist. Before we come to a conclusion, we must think back as to why this is the current situation. According to history, laws have been written which give men complete control over women. Not just too much rights, it was much more than that. People around the world have come in unison to strive towards 'equality'. When we assess the current situation, it is quite clear that no gender is dominating over the other. Using common sense, in order to equalize 2 things one needs to decrease the amount of the higher and increase the amount of the lower. The same logic applies but in a far more complicated way. Putting in simply, yes it is possible to just give women the rights that men have. But history has affected too much of our judgement of women, one would rather pick a man than a women for a thus laws which women a slight advantage can be accepted.
The (Australian) national curriculum should teach 'Australian Values'

Aussie schools can try to teach children Australian Values to children, but we must remember that values cannot be learnt from textbooks or by the teacher telling them. Most children tend to copy what adults or their role models do. For example, if a teacher or student is kind, polite and respectful towards others, a child has already learnt some basic values. So the best way to teach kids Australian values is by acting by them.
The (Australian) national curriculum should teach 'Australian Values'

I thank Raquib for the opportunity to debate this important topic. Confusion with the term ‘teach’ I argue that it is possible to teach students values through both teacher and curriculum. The curriculum is a guide for teachers. It outlines requirements to be taught. So, in order to help ensure that Australian Values are being taught, these should be placed into the curriculum. My opponent’s criticism comes about by assuming that because Australian Values cannot be taught effectively via only the curriculum (i.e. a teacher is required to teach; just staring at Australian Values will not help children), that they should not be in the curriculum because of this. The mistake comes from assuming that teachers and the curriculum cannot work in tandem to instil Australian Values within students. ‘Values must be explicitly articulated and explicitly taught.’ This quote is taken from ‘Implementing the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools: Report of the Values Education Good Practice Schools Project – Stage 1’ [1]. The report further suggests, on page 9, that, “The Good Practice Schools Project experiences support the conclusion that effective values education involves the explicit articulation and explicit teaching of the values.” This sentiment is furthered echoed by an official Australian curriculum report, released by the Australian Government [2]. My opponent is arguing against the explicit teaching of values, rather, he/she is arguing for implicit teaching. The explicit teaching makes sure that values are taught, or else they could be seen as an “add-on” component, and as a result, potentially be missed in teaching. It is of no question whether these values should be taught, but my opponent’s suggested method contradicts the conclusions found in education reports, the reports being accepted as true by no less than the Australian Government. It’s not that my opponent’s suggested method is bad, it’s just that it’s not the best. Brief Conclusion Australian Values can be taught via teachers, through the help of a curriculum, and this has proven to be beneficial. Sources/ References [1]http://www.valueseducation.edu.au... [2]http://www.valueseducation.edu.au...
Abortion is Murder

"But it isn't a being yet, It has not survived. "In the case for a baby, The live/exist part applies but it hasn't gone through any hardships. "So can someone kill another person while there are asleep? "Yes. In the case of "consciousness" this refers to the state or quality of awareness or of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. Not being literally awake from sleep. Premeditation. The mother premeditates, Yes. But abortion doesn't equate to premeditated murder since murder is illegal and abortion is legal in parts of the world. Perhaps not all doctors but some may feel bad, Who knows? Some doctors may feel bad terminating a potential life and others don't. "How can something not alive grow or carry a process? The fetus is existing, See the definition of exist in my previous argument. "In the stage of a fetus, It isn't existing. If it's not alive, How can it be murdered? It has to be alive in order to be murdered. Unborn baby is a fetus, Since a fetus is a baby to be. The mother does have the right because if she goes through with having the baby, Then like I said, The baby would be motherless. It's her body. If someone breaks into your house, Then yeah you have every right to kill them as it is self defense and they are bringing harm. If you kill them, Then it is what it is, It lead up to that point. If you don't then, Who knows what might happen, But everyone is different and makes their own decision. In closing: Murder is illegal ~ unlawful killingAbortion is legal ~ not unlawful killingThere's a reason why Roe vs Wade was passed. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, Is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. This means abortion is a woman's right. Abortion is not murder. Thanks for the debate!
Abortion is Murder

"But it isn't a being yet, It has not survived. " - Definition of survive: continue to live or exist, Especially in spite of danger or hardship. If what your saying, Is the baby has only survived once it is delivered, Then what danger has it been revealed through; what hardship has it gone through? Change in location? How can change in location be a danger? "A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, Morality, Consciousness or self-consciousness. " - So can someone kill another person while there are asleep? "Yes there's thought, But it isn't with malicious intent or premeditation. I'm sure there's doctors who feel sorry for aborting a baby instead of feeling satisfied thinking "Yes! I killed it. " after all, It's the mother's decision. " - Definition of premeditation: the action of planning something beforehand. The mother does premeditate before she "terminates the pregnancy. " Why would the doctors feel sorry after killing something that is apparently not alive? "A mother is still a mother even if the fetus isn't existing since fetuses grow and there's a process, From embryo/fetus and to a baby. " - How can something not alive grow or carry a process? The fetus is existing, See the definition of exist in my previous argument. "What does that mean? Is this in reference toward unborn baby or a born baby. Can't a baby be alive even if the mother doesn't want the baby? Or did I take your point the wrong way. " - In your previous argument, You defined an unborn baby as a fetus, So, Please be consistent in using "baby" and "fetus. " However, I was referencing to an unborn baby. If the baby is indeed alive in the womb and the mother doesn't want the baby, And the baby is killed (aborted), Then obviously it's murder. But from your point, The baby isn't alive and the mother doesn't want the baby, Which is why i stated that the determinate of whether the baby is alive is whether the mother wants the baby or not. A mother who wants her baby, Considers the baby alive, That's why if they were to get hit by a drunk driver, It would be double homicide. But if the baby is not wanted, And is killed, It is perfectly fine. A fetus is a synonym of unborn baby. A baby is just a very young child. A child is a young human being below the age of puberty. Abortion is killing a valuable life, Which is separate from the life of its mother. The mother should not have the right to end the fetus's life simply because it's in her body. I can't kill someone just because they enter my house (except under certain circumstances). There are other options that a mother can choose; she does not have to end the life of her baby. In New York, It is now legal to abort a baby as late as the day before it is born; there are certain circumstances needed, But not any that can be disproven. Abortion is murder. God Bless!
Abortion is Murder

"She could also give an early term birth, Therefore, Giving the baby a chance to survive. "Ok"Abort - verb"Ok"Ending the life of an innocent entity. "Ending the lifeTermination of pregnancyLifePotential lifeIt could be argued that aborting a fetus over 2-3 months would be considered ending of a life since the baby is forming. But it isn't a being yet, It has not survived. This is like saying a person's brain does not exist simply because it is inside their head. Good point. Difference would be that if the brain is removed from the head, It would die since it doesn't have anything to work on. Once the baby is born (out of the mother), It does not die, It fully exists and it lives. Severe scoliosis. They are a person. A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, Morality, Consciousness or self-consciousness. That includes people with disabilities and conditions. "Maybe they couldn't support the baby. . . " - This is another situation in which adoption would be a great solution. "Agreed. "So do you believe that there is no thought put into ending a baby's life? "Yes there's thought, But it isn't with malicious intent or premeditation. I'm sure there's doctors who feel sorry for aborting a baby instead of feeling satisfied thinking "Yes! I killed it. " after all, It's the mother's decision. Unborn fetus = potential babyA mother is still a mother even if the fetus isn't existing since fetuses grow and there's a process, From embryo/fetus and to a baby. "Does that mean abortion clinics are committing homicide? " - Yes. Wonder why they aren't punished then. The determinate of whether the baby is alive or not is whether the mother wants the baby. What does that mean? Is this in reference toward unborn baby or a born baby. Can't a baby be alive even if the mother doesn't want the baby? Or did I take your point the wrong way. "If want is necessary for a life to be valuable, Then it would be okay for someone to kill their 2 year old child because they do not want he/she? "No.
Abortion is Murder

If the mother's life is at risk, Abortion is not her only option. She could also give an early term birth, Therefore, Giving the baby a chance to survive. I Googled the definition of abortion. However, You get an abortion, You abort a baby. Abort would be the verb. Yes, I'm arguing that abortion is murder and therefore it should be a crime. It's not a completely different scenario, It's is ending the life of an innocent entity. "A fetus inside a womb is not a being yet, It exists once it comes out of the uterus. " - This is like saying a person's brain does not exist simply because it is inside their head. The fetus is still existing, The placement of the baby does not determine whether it is alive or not. ". . . They have upright stance. . " - So are people who have severe scoliosis not human beings? No, Whether a person has upright stance does not determine if they are human or not. "Maybe they couldn't support the baby. . . " - This is another situation in which adoption would be a great solution. ". . . Think or plan out a murder beforehand. " - So do you believe that there is no thought put into ending a baby's life? I certainly think there is, The doctors have to think about the procedure, And I'm sure the mother thought about ending the life of the baby. "fetus = born, Baby = born" - In your argument from round one, You called an unborn "fetus" a baby multiple times. The placement of someone should not determine whether it is ok to kill that someone. Also, The definition of a mother is a woman in relation to her child or children, You have also called the woman carrying the "fetus" a mother. If the fetus is not alive, Or even existing, Then how can that woman have a relationship with it? She is a mother of a baby whom is alive and existing. "Does that mean abortion clinics are committing homicide? " - Yes. "What do you mean exactly? " - I apologize for being unclear, I should have given an example instead of using a broad term. Yes, I meant that if she gets in a wreck with a drunk driver or another situation similar to that. The determinate of whether the baby is alive or not is whether the mother wants the baby. If want is necessary for a life to be valuable, Then it would be okay for someone to kill their 2 year old child because they do not want he/she? "Because abortion isn't murder. " - See my above paragraph.
Abortion is Murder

A woman cannot merely do whatever she wants with "her" body; the baby is not her body, It is a genetically different individual that is simply just in her womb. A woman cannot go sell her body on the street and prostitute herself without getting arrested ( I am saying this just to point out that people cannot do whatever they want with their body, Even though a baby in the womb of a mother is a different individual). When a woman chooses to abort her baby, She is killing another entity. A person cannot strap a bomb to their body and walk into an airport - they're putting other people's lives in danger. Abortion - noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, Most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. A baby can survive outside of the womb when there are as young as 22 weeks (there is only a 20% chance of survival, But there's still a chance). However, A baby that is born at 28 weeks has a 95% chance of survival. Your argument of an unborn child not being a human being because they "do not have superior mental development, Articulate speech nor upright stance" - so are people that have mental disabilities such as severe Down Syndrome not a human being? I see your point with a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault, It is an absolute tragedy, However, The woman has already conceived a baby. But babies should not be considered a burden, Babies and children are blessing given to us from God, They bring joy to our lives. Sure, There can be some rough patches, But feeling their tiny hands wrap around your finger brings such joy. A victim of rape can give the baby up for adoption, They shouldn't make the baby a victim after they were a victim of something horrific their-self. Women needing to abort their baby because of health reasons is incredibly rare. Aborting the baby isn't always the only option, Though, They can give an early term birth and give the baby a chance to survive. Those women that change their mind obviously didn't kill their baby, So those cases are pretty irrelevant to this argument. The women that do kill their baby, However, Usually do it out of mere convenience. The definition of murder doesn't even include "malice aforethought. " Laws vary throughout countries - even throughout states. That's the point I'm trying to argue - women who kill their babies should go to prison, They shouldn't be able to walk away with no punishment. As I pointed out before, The mother who's life is in danger can give an early term delivery. In Ireland, Abortion is legal if the fetus is 12 weeks or younger; they do not say that abortion is illegal. Abortion is homicide. If a drunk driver, For example, Kills a pregnant woman and kills the both of them, The driver will be convicted for double homicide. So yes, Abortion can be homicide. The deciding factor in this is convenience and want; if the mother wants the baby and it somehow gets killed, It is then murder; but if she doesn't want the baby, And gets an abortion, Then she goes un-convicted. This shows the hypocrisy of our nation, Killing a baby goes unpunished in some situations, But a person can go to prison for life in other situations.
Future Technology is good

My point is that if we have made a self driving car then its possible for flying cars. If you don't believe me then think about this. If we have things like flying cars then won't that help us make new technology for other things like medicines. The technology could help us make holograms and other things important to us. But that wouldn't be helpful because f we had holograms then there wouldn't be any way of having privacy. Lets say you are at a coffee shop and you have a hologram computer and you are checking your bank account then all someone has to do is look over your shoulder and wow they know everything you have in your account.