BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Hello! I'm pro life because of one reason; I do not think that anyone have the moral right force anything on another human being (or living creature) without its consent. Since we cant ask the child for consent, we do not have the right to kill it. I believe that life begins at conception, or at least a smaller form of life. When a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. My point is that after conception, the child has its own body, and its own cells. Those are not owned by the mother, so she should not have the right to kill it. A woman has a choice of becoming pregnant (or at least, should have). Because she is aware of the risk by having unprotected sex, she should not be given the right to kill another human being. The woman placed the baby there by choice. The only time when I can accept the right for an individual to take another individual life, is if there is consent from both sides. Since we cant ask the baby for consent, we do not have the right to kill it. According to the world health organisation, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day. This is comparable to the death count from WW2, EVERY YEAR. People usually talk about sympathy for the woman who would have to go through all the biological reductions as there are of being pregnant. But nobody ever talk about sympathy for the child. The child has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, did not have a choice to be in that position and the mother wants to kill the him/her. The only one that had a choice of putting him/her in that position is the mother and the father. So why should the mother have the right to kill it, when they were aware of the risk by having s
Abortion

I"m excited to take part in a debate on this extremely important and complex topic! It was requested in the OP that answers to three questions be given before the debate begins. With that in mind, I plan on using round 1 for that exact purpose to allow myself and my opponent space to flesh out our respective arguments and rebuttals in rounds 2 and 3. 1. What is your definition of life? I would make two distinctions here. i. Life as a fundamentally basic biological category (includes things like plants, amoebas, etc.) ii. Life as a designation of moral consideration In the abortion debate, ii is the definition that matters. In the proceeding rounds, I plan on making some points related to the properties of entities that we, as rational moral agents, find morally valuable (ability to feel pain, will to live, preferences, subjective sense of reality). Therefore, life, on my view, is applicable to beings who have characteristics like the ones mentioned. 2. Is all life equal? No. At some level, moral reasoning is able to distinguish the extent of moral obligations and duties. One argument/thought experiment I will be using attempts to show that the anti-abortion advocate"s claims of obligation fails as it leads to absurd conclusions. Also, as a vegan I think that a broader spectrum of life is worthy of moral consideration; however, I still recognize an asymmetry in certain cases. 3. At what point is the fetus considered a human life, and we cant kill it? I somewhat agree with the idea that a fetus can be considered a human life at conception; however, I would also dispute the idea that mere membership of a biological species alone grants moral worth. I hope I answered these questions and look forward to the debate!
Abortion

I think that abortion is immoral in every scenario, and that it should be illegal in every scenario. The abortion question is rather simple, if you think that the fetus is a life, then it has human rights, and we cant kill it. But if it is not a life, then sure, we can kill it. I would like to get 3 questions answered before this before the pro choice can start with their arguments; 1. What is your definition of life? 2. Is all life equal? 3. At what point is the fetus considered a human life, and we cant kill it? (I need to add that I'm not religious in any way)
RESOLVED: In society the common good should be valued over the individual's interest

First: The topic of democracy is relevant to this discussion since nobody actually KNOWS what the "common good" actually is. There are practical considerations to how the "common good" is to be determined. It will be either through a democracy or some sort of third party (the third party not being perfect, either). The problems of determining the "common good" makes your argument completely impractical. There is the possibility that I misunderstood the premise of the debate and that the determination of the "common good" is to be assumed. In that case I'll drop it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I acknowledge certain rules need to be enacted to protect the "common good" of each individual. In other words, I do not suggest complete anarchy. Certain rights of individuals need to be protected, one of those rights being the right to life and property. A collectivist government would protect each person from physical harm and protect each person from thieves. Since no person can steal or harm another person in anyway, society will benefit from individual interest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry this is rather short. I've been busy. Next argument will be longer.
RESOLVED: In society the common good should be valued over the individual's interest

The dangers of your philosophy can be exemplified with two quotes from great men. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjaman Franklin The problem with your philisophy is that you don't aknowledge the fact that the common interest can and most likely will oppress the minority. For instance, it may be the common interest's decision to enslave the minority for the sake of the common good. This enslavement may be for the benefit of society, but how can anybody honostly embrace that decision? Furthermore, individual interest will invariably benefit society as a whole. As Adam Smith worded it, "Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention," and, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." In other words, the common good is promoted by self interest.
The Oral Torah:

Sabbath place:Well it's simple, if place is defined as an area which is set apart from elsewhere by some way, since it says you shall not leave your place, possessive, it is refering to the area which is set apart from everywhere else that belongs to you. So you cannot leave your property on Shabbat. Sabbath Labour:No, this word is always used to refer to productive activities, something that someone would pay you for, not something that someone IS paying you for. The slaughter of animals:What meal are we supposed to eat for dinner if it is the 17th of may on a leap year? The Torah doesn't contain instructions for how to celebrate leap year! How amigous the Torah is! It doesn't tell you how to cut the animal because it just doesn't, just like what to eat for dinner on the 17rth of may, it isn't an instuction. The Torah says to kill animals as G-d commanded us to, what is that? Drain all the blood out and kill it humanely, that's IT. Haggai:No, it says if something touches something unclean hat thing is unclean, including skirts. Can you prove that Isaiah 59:21 is refering to the Oral torah? It says "the words I've put in your mouths," which is also used to refer to the written Torah in Joshua 1:8, all this is is circumstantial evidence.
The Oral Torah:

Sabbath place - You have to be more specific. "A place set apart from another in some geographic way" is ambiguous. Someone would read it and interpret it as "this town", but someone would interpret it as "this island" or "this continent" or "everything on this side of the river." If someone comes and argues for the latter, you will not be able to disprove his claim using only the Written Torah. Sabbath labour - Again, this is ambiguous. Someone can make the argument that if work is done for free, it is allowed, and you will not be able to disprove this claim. Do you really want to risk breaking the Sabbath? The Torah says that fire is not allowed. Does that only include fire in the conventional sense, or does it also include electricity? The slaughter of animals - Deuteronomy 12 clearly speaks of slaughtering animals for food. Draining the blood in Leviticus 17 is only referring to sacrifices that are brought to the Mishkan. About slaughtering for food, Leviticus 17 only says to cover the blood with dust. The questions remain unanswered. How to properly slaughter an animal? Where to cut? With what? By whom? etc. Haggai - Haggai specifically asks, "Should a man carry contaminated flesh IN THE SKIRT OF HIS GARMENT, if it touches in his SKIRT..." This question is not answered in Numbers 19, or anywhere else in the Tanakh. The Oral Torah will never be forgotten - Joshua 1 : 8 was referring specifically to the Book of Deuteronomy, which was completed on the last day of the life of Moses. Isaiah 59 : 21 was referring to the Torah as a whole (the Written and the Oral) and so was (Isaiah 51 : 16) "And I placed My words into your mouth, and with the shadow of My hand I covered you, to plant the heavens and to found the earth and to say to Zion [that] you are My people."
The Oral Torah:

Sabbath place: Consistently, Maqom is used to refer to a specific place set apart from another by some geographic way. One has water the other doesn’t, one ground is holy the other isn’t. Sabbath Labor: This one is incredibly stupid to argue, it’s like saying “but these tax codes- what defines a dollar?” Work is always used to describe productive labor, something that someone would pay you for, that is what Joseph was doing, that’s what the creation is. The slaughter of animals Leviticus 17 set up that the animal has to be drained of all blood, one of the regulations for slaughtering animals. Second it has to be killed humanely, those are the regulations. Haggai: Actually, this law is in the Torah, Numbers 19:22 says: “Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening." So you said that something is not in the Torah while it really is in the Torah to validate the Oral Torah for the second time. The Oral Torah will be forgotten: Isaiah 59:21 is not referring to the Oral Torah, because Joshua 1:8 says: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.” This verse clarifies that it is the Written Torah that will not leave your mouth, not the Oral Torah.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

English is NOT a language spoken worldwide. It is only the 3rd largest native language (Mandarin is the first; Spanish the second), and there are thousands of languages spoken today. Only ~5% of the world speaks English at a native level. With ~480 million fluent speakers (both native and learned), which is only about 6% of the world population. That means 94% of the world cannot speak English. Now, you might argue that most governments speak English. Yes, that is true, however, governments make up a very small portion of the world population. For a language to be truly universal, it must be spoken by the majority of at least the middle class. In many countries, very few people speak English better than their native language. Most of them (except for powerful men and leaders of large business) cannot hold anything more than basic conversation.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

English should not be consider universal. If you believe it should be, please go ahead and accept. Here is an outline of how this debate will work: Round 1: Not a debate round. Simply use it to accept my debate. Round 2: I give you my first point to why it should not be universal. You try to argue against it. Round 3: Same as 2, but with new point. Round 4: Same as 2 & 3, but with new point.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

You say (or imply) that my source of Wikipedia is not a reliable source. http://news.byu.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... This says otherwise and you do not rebut this. Next, You say that there are a few organizations that do not use English. I did overlook this but my point still stands. The Language is a universal language because it does have universal effect. You say next that it is hard to learn English. English is still the language that is best known. "Yes, most government leaders know English, but only use it when dealing with English speaking people." This proves exactly what I have been trying to pro the entire time. It has a universal effect because people outside of the native country will have to learn it. Because I proved that English has a universal effect on the world I urge a con ballot.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

The statement that all diplomatic organizations use English is false. The Nordic Council only uses 3 languages, none of which are English (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Arab League has 1 official language, Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Arab Maghreb Union has 2, Arabic and French (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Governments/organizations speak the language that most of the people they speak with will understand. Yes, most government leaders know English, but only use it when dealing with English speaking people. The leaders of UAE and Saudi Arabia will use Arabic when talking. The leaders of El Salvador and Mexico will use Spanish when in meeting. Please note, I do say most, not all governments. Please provide your [trustful] source which states that 25% of the world speaks English. This brings me to another point. English is a very hard language for many to learn. If you are not a European (or any country that writes in the Latin Alphabet), you will have to learn a new alphabet. Some people will even have to learn to produce a new sound (for example, someone who only speaks Hebrew will have to learn to make the "j" sound). The grammar is very different form that of Arabic, and the writing system different from most Asian languages. English is very irregular and complex, so that makes it much more difficult for those not raised in an English environment to learn. A truly universal language would have to incorporate all the different types of language into one and be very regular, so that anyone can learn it with not too much difficulty.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

You are just saying random languages. The fact is that every major diplomatic organization uses English. There cannot be a diplomat organization without English. As this effects everybody this follows my definition of universal such making it a con vote as of right now. He is even ignoring the fact that it is the most spoken language worldwide as more than 1/4 of the world knows how to speak English. No other language even passes 1/5. The pro case even says " most governments speak English" and that it does not matter. How is this not universal? Why would most governments speak a language that is not universal? He is also providing no evidence and throwing random facts without anything to back it up.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

First off, English is ONE of the SIX languages of the UN. The others are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. The EU has 23 international languages. Some are Greek, Irish, Hungarian, Spanish, Portuguese, German. You stated that 6.5 (Canada speaks French as well) speak English, as well as a number of Caribbean countries (which speak English, but less than the Latin/Romance languages). That is barely scratching the surface. It is no where near universal. There are 196 countries in the world. Those organization you states use English as ONE of their MANY languages. why not call all 6 UN languages universal? A lot of Africa and the Middle East speak Arabic. Russia and former Soviet countries speak Russian. An entire continent (or half of one depending on your geographic views) speaks Spanish and/or Portuguese.
English should not be considered an international or universal language.

First as you did not do definitions You concede that to me. I define Universal: A person or thing having universal effect, currency, or application, in particular. In your first point you say that only 6 percent of the worlds population speaks English. This is misconstruing facts. Only 6 percent speak English as a first language. The real facts say that 27% of people speak English. This is also the most widely used language used in the world ,and the official language of the European Union and of the United Nations. Mandarin comes in at 18% as t next highest. http://en.wikipedia.org... In your second point you say that it does not matter that the most governments speak English. In my definition of universal i say it must have universal effect. The fact that the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Great Britan and a number of Caribbean nations as well as the United Nations and the European Union makes it universal. For somebody to engage in any of these Agencies they must learn how to speak English. No other language has something that is this powerful. As with my definition English has a Universal effect due to the most powerful organizations in the world using it.
Term Limits

My opponent concedes that they did not fulfill their burden of proof. I ask the gentle reader to remember this while voting. Yes, it is true that a term limit will reduce the ability of a dictator. However, the people would likely vote this person out of power if they were to rise into it, because they have the absolute right to vote. I don't really have anything to rebut apart from this, it seemed as though my opponent was just crystalizing his points.
Term Limits

Thanks for the debate and I thought I was fufilling my BOP I apoligize. Term limits also prevent dictatorship. We have had a number of very bad leaders through the ages of time that should have had limits placed on them. And yes good points on Ernie Chambers I understand what you are doing there my friend don't worry about that :). Question I: Good points, however true democracy also involves making sure people rotate in and out, balance if you will. Question II: Let me see here, term limits also help hold a canidate accountable for his/her actions. And it keeps them from getting too much power. Question IV: There are good leaders out there yes for instance Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai. However, term limits insure that good leaders are kept in balance as well. Question V: The law does not undermine democracy. it holds leaders accountable and keeps everything in balance. Thank you so much for the debate so far
Term Limits

Okay, so, my opponent didn't fulfill his side of the BoP so I don't really have anything to refute. I can answer refutations I guess.Term limits encourage democracy:Thought this may seem true at the surface (e.g. everyone gets a shot at being a representative! woop woop!), it's flawed very deeply. They take away the correct men and women for the job and undercut the values of democracy (where everyone has the same rights). In a true democracy, all candidates of equal quality would be elected equally. Whether or not this happens in the US does not truly matter because the US is not a pure democracy.Ernie ChambersIt was just an example to say that imposing term limits right now would make lawmakers in at least Nebraska, and probably more states, very confused on how the system works. This would cause the productivity to severely suffer and in turn the people would suffer.Question I.In a true democracy everyone can run for government, so this is not a really valid justification for the creation of term limits. Whether or not they are quality enough for government is for the average voter to decide.Question II.Having a candidate pledge a certain amount of time completely throws away the necessity of term limits as a whole. It will be custom to only serve a few terms, where in term limits it will be regulated. There is no necessity of term limits with this proposition.Question IV.So we shouldn't forget about the good leaders, yet we should impose an unncessary system where democracy and the people are hurt? Maybe I'm crazy but this does not add up.Question V.What's the purpose of the law when it specifically undermines democracy?As Martin Luther King, Jr. put it: "There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law"
Term Limits

Thank you for the debate Lexus :). Refutal I Term limits do not limit democracy they encourage it. They encourage more people getting to be in government and have a say in the matter. Refutal II Sen Ernie Chambers is a great man yes. But I call into account he voted for death penalty repeal in Nebraska, but that is a debate for another time. He does have a good heart though I accept that. Refutal and answering your questions Question 1: The necessity is this. It helps give more people a role in their government and gives other people a chance to run for office, Question 2: Yes, they can with some sort of a deal. Some canidates pledge to serve no more than a certain ammount of terms, for instance. Question 3: I would say 20 years is reasonable for Senate, and represenatives. Federal Judges should be elected every 5 years not appointed for life. Question 4: Good leaders are very hard to come by and we should not forget about them. Question 5: Good leaders must obey the law to the letter, regardless if they are good or not.
Term Limits

This is a direct challenge to my friend Kylar because I noticed that he is in favor of term limits while I am against them. The BoP is shared between the both of us.As per DDO and formal debate custom, the affirmation will speak first and will waive the final round. No semantics, trolling or forfeits. Resolved: Term limits are, on balance, beneficial.Term limit - a statutory limit on the number of terms a governmental official may serveOn balance - with all things considered; weighing the pros and the cons against each otherBeneficial - have more benefits than drawbacksThank you and good luck!