BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Power Corrupts

I thank Piffler for this debate. So Con has once again tried to deter the fact that Power will eventually corrupt a person, but what excuses does he use this time? He begins by falsely interpreting what i had said: "as you can be "born good" and then still be corrupted in the years before you take power." That is exactly what i had said, "people are not born evil" which means that they can still turn evil thus referring back to my "wicked intentions being developed". Then side Con says that i agreed with him, in no case had i agreed with him that argument, is not the thought of power still power? My opponent then tries to encourage people to vote for him by showing exaggerated research saying that Hitler hated Jew's from a young age, but actually Hitler had hired a Jewish doctor to care for his mother whom he loved very much, and was actually quite friendly with the Jews at a young age, it was not until his adulthood did his feelings of hate develop. Power had not only put Hitler's beliefs on display it had also given the "confidence" to carry through with these actions. So through the end of my opponents rebuttal side Con has shown not an iota of proof that Hitler had a preset mind to kill Jews, and that it was not Power which had consumed him into doing what he had done. I would like the Gallery to now refer back to what i said which was " How long does it take for that overwhelming sense of confidence to turn against them?" My phrase does not say power immediately corrupts a person, and did nowhere i state that, thus proving once again a false misinterpretation, i urge the Gallery to see what the real truth is. And thus brings us to the final mark in our debate, have i said that Power ALWAYS corrupt? No. Have i said that Power immediately corrupts? No. Con has not only tried to exploit false findings but also urges you to vote for them. Is this the right thing to do? No. In fact power does actually have it's good and it's bad, but the fundamental question was "How to we decide that power, does more harm than good?" And obviously seeing the arguments presented in this debate it is evident that Power WILL eventually corrupt a person, and that a obsession with Power will corrupt a person, thus bringing the answer to our question. Does Power Corrupt? Yes.
Power Corrupts

I would now like to rebut some of the points that my opponent has just made. To counter my argument that people are corrupt before they enter power, my opponent states that "nobody is born evil, the people with wicked intentions are developed not born with. " And then my opponent later says, "The thought of power had gripped Hitler to into becoming a leader, with the said "wicked intentions". " First of all, I would like to point out that the fact that people are not "born evil" does absolutely nothing to affect my case, as you can be "born good" and then still be corrupted in the years before you take power. Then, my opponent basically agrees with me in the Hitler scenario because he says not that power corrupted him, but that he was already corrupt by the "thought of power. " Then my opponent tries to save his argument by asserting that Hitler was corrupted by power into these actions. However, at a young age, Hitler was already obsessed with war and had strong feelings against the Jews [1]. As a result, my opponent's arguments that the power corrupted him are unfounded, at the very least, since we can see that power merely put his beliefs on display, it did not change them. Although I agree that the actions which Hitler performed caused terrible casualties, my opponent has not proved that it was power that led him to change his mindset (and become corrupted), but I have proved that he already had the mindset before coming into power. My opponent then tries to turn my example of how people can get an improved work ethic through power, and thus become less corrupt since power is improving the quality of these people. My opponent has conceded this point when he states that "It is true that power may improve people. .. " but tries to say that this improved work ethic has negative impacts on society. First of all, again, my opponent has not proved that in the Hitler example power effectively changed his mindset. And if we look at the grand scheme of things, we can see that in many cases power is extremely beneficial, as it showcases people with good intentions and improves them. Now, the other thing that I would like to point out is that the resolution is the absolute statement "Power corrupts. " Therefore, on the PRO, my opponent has to prove that power ALWAYS corrupts. As he has clearly not done so, I urge a vote for the CON. Sources: [1] . http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu...
Power Corrupts

So what have we heard from Con? He has brought no strong points to effectively deter the thought of Power corrupting people. Con has said that before people come to power they already had wicked intentions. But let us review for a bit, nobody is born evil, the people with wicked intentions are developed not born with. What drove Hitler to the top? What motivated him to become the leader of the people? It. Was. Power. The thought of power had gripped Hitler to into becoming a leader, with the said "wicked intentions". Once Hitler had hit the top, he became drunk with Power, it was the thought of him having so much power that drove him into other countries, his first goal was only to create genocide on the Jews in Germany, but instead he decided to boast about his power to other countries, killing innocents and taking a mass number of lives. Con has also said that "Power improves people. as a position of power brings confidence and usually a more intensive work ethic. " It is true that power may improve people, but to what account? How long is it until that Power turns into destruction? How long does it take for that overwhelming sense of confidence to turn against them? Ladies and Gentlemen did Hitler not have a "intensive work ethic? " Did Hitler not have a high position that not only improved his train of thought but also brought him confidence? So where is Hitler now? Where is his confidence? It was Power which eventually corrupted him, leading to his downfall. Is it so irrational to say that the power that people are filled with eventually corrupts them? People of the Gallery, I think not.
Power Corrupts

I accept my opponent's definitions. Since the PRO is also the instigator, it is clear that he has the BoP and must prove why it is that power corrupts. I contend this concept with the idea that power does not corrupt, as per his definition, in order for it to corrupt, it would have to destroy the integrity of people. I will show why it does not do so by examining the main group my opponent is pointing out, and then looking at people with power in society as a whole. ===People who use power to do wicked things=== This category, which includes Hitler, consists of people whose ideals are not changed in any way by the power which they obtain. All the things which this group wanted to do, but never had the ability to do suddenly become possibilities. This leads some people to think that power has corrupted, as it appears to cause a change in personality. Rather, it simply reveals the true nature and intentions of those who previously concealed them from most of society. Since power actually causes people to reveal things about themselves that they were previously concealing from society, it does not corrupt; rather, it causes less corruption since they become more honest about their true intentions, according to my opponent's definition. The main point that I would like to make about this group is that power does not corrupt them, as they already have wicked intentions before coming into power. ===People with power in general=== Power in many cases actually improves people, as a position of power brings confidence and usually a more intensive work ethic. A study published in TIME magazine shows that a general feeling of power greatly improves performance. Thus, it is irrational to say that power corrupts these people, since it actually improves them. Sources: http://www.time.com...
Power Corrupts

The topic that has been presented before the gallery today is "Power Corrupts", I on side Pro define Power as "control and influence over other people and their actions" and Corrupts as in "to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal". So what is Power? Power is the ability to do something, whether it be by one's self or through others. People with Power can do almost anything they want, but what makes power? Money creates Power, Influence creates Power, Numbers Creates Power. But I on side Pro do not say that these things themselves are evil, power is always judged and governed by the people who use them. Power can be used responsibly but it can also be dangerous for those with wicked intentions. So what is the fundamental question brought to this debate? "How to we decide that power, does more harm than good?" I will begin with 1 point to start off this debate. Probably the most infamous story of Power corrupting people is the story of WWII. and Hitler, as many may know the story Hitler used his influence and power to control and create armies to do his bidding, these armies destroyed cities, killed innocent people and eventually led to their downfall, but if we are to retrace where this war had started from, it would lead to the man in charge, the man with the most "Power". In this instance Power corrupted Hitler, the power that Hitler was so engrossed in eventually corrupted him and had turned him into a low lived person who eventually killed himself. Hitler was obsessed with power, he thought he could control the world with his power, he thought he could move mountains and have every single person bow down to him. The People in Power not only do not have to fight their own fight, but instead call upon the lower leveled ones to do their bidding. Wars are fought between powerful nations and their elites and leaders, but who actually did the fighting? who actually gave their lives in battle? Who were the ones defending their country? Definitely not the leaders, in fact the power these leaders had were astonishing, especially with just a simple call, they could start wars and end lives. So really the question we should be asking is, What do we value more? Power? Or people's lives?
Australian Aboriginals would be better off if white people never came to Australia

The 'good job markets' in Australia are no use to Aboriginals - no one wants to hire them, and the Government is happy enough to pay them not to work. Therefore, the only argument worth rebutting from your first round is that they have 'clean running water' thanks to us. While that may be so, that is about the only thing we've given them that has been helpful, as opposed to detrimental, to their race. They thrived as a race for 50000 years until the Brits arrived. They have spiralled downwards as a race ever since, and continue to spiral. Wikipedia: "The most immediate consequence of British settlement - within weeks of the first colonists' arrival - was a wave of Old World epidemic diseases. Smallpox alone killed more than 50% of the Aboriginal population living in the vicinity of Sydney.The second consequence of British settlement was appropriation of land and water resources. The combination of disease, loss of land and direct violence reduced the Aboriginal population by up to 80% between 1788 and 1900." The Aboriginals of today are dole-bludgers, alcoholics, petrol- and paint-sniffers; they don't work, they are easily irritable and generally feared. Their race has no more respect, because we have taken it away from them. We pay them to sit at home and get drunk. Wikipedia: "In 1996-2001, the life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian was 59.4 years for males and, in 2004-05, 65.0 years for females[27], approximately 17 years lower than the Australian average." The reasons for this are many and varied, but every single problem they face today can be attributed to the arrival of white people to Australia.
Australian Aboriginals would be better off if white people never came to Australia

For some reason my round 1 went through as a comment first. Let me try to repost... I have been to countries devoid of clean running water and good job markets. Ill take the so-called luxuries thank you. My argument for this is the same as my argument of why white people in America should not offer formal apologies for slavery: There are no offenders left, and there is no one left to be offended. End of my round 1.
Australian Aboriginals would be better off if white people never came to Australia

This is to all those who have been saying that Prime Minister Rudd shouldn't have said sorry to the Aboriginals for the Stolen Generation because "without us, they wouldn't have clean water, houses, jobs, money etc." My argument is that if we'd never invaded (yep, that's what we did - it's hard to 'discover' something that's been inhabited for 50000 years...) Australia, the Aboriginals would still be blissful in their ignorance of white people's existance and all these so-called luxuries they have because of us Europeans. That is, they would be alot better off as a race than they are now.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

Thank you to my opponant for offering this debate. I disagree that abortion should be allowed unless it is an ectopic pregnancy. I would make that exception to save the life of the mother, but otherwise no. Starting at fertilization, the organism is genetically seperate from both parents. The baby can feel pain as soon as 12 weeks, and can survive as soon as 6 months. The unborn are human beings with rights. A lot of the abortion methods are harmful to the mother and baby. The baby has his or her body torn to pieces in most abortion methods, and that can cause pain to mother and child. I feel it is wrong to kill babies like that. What about the baby's right to choose? If a woman does not want a baby, there are many contraceptive methods out there.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

Abortion should remain legal as it is in many states - up to 23 weeks into pregnancy. The reality is that many women (or couples) experience unwanted pregnancies that they cannot responsibly handle. This is because humans are flawed and not because they are bad people. There are many examples of zygotes that are created in circumstances of which it would be reasonable to abort: rape, incest, drug addiction, prostitution, homelessness and countless other socioeconomic difficulties. The moral argument that it is murder, or that it is a life at these stages is based on personal opinion or religious beliefs - this makes it invalid and it should not be imposed on a general population that has varied religious/moral beliefs. We live in a country that prides itself on the freedom to choose your beliefs, therefore I am pro-choice on this matter. Furthermore, I believe that anyone who is adamantly pro-life is obligated to adopt as many children as possible. As a victim of the results of the foster/orphanage system - I can explain in great detail that every baby that is born is NOT loved and cared for. Only 7,000 families adopted children last year in the USA; http://www.ccainstitute.org... That number does not appear to be big enough to support pro-life expectations. There would simply be too many children to care for if we outlawed abortion. There are many children being neglected at this very moment. To be fair, I will admit that anyone who is willing to step up and care for these unwanted children deserves my utmost respect and silence on the matter, but they are obviously a rarity, so their position does not change my view on the majority.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

My debate partner is accusing me of forcing my beliefs on others. I will step by step demonstrate why I do not think that I am. 1. I affirm the right of the woman to use contraception. I see nothing wrong with preventing fertilization, but once fertilization happens, a new life exists that has rights. 2. I support abortion for the life of the mother or if the baby will die anyway. I am not a no exceptions kind of girl. 3. Most women who are pregnant chose to have sex. I understand that pregnancy due to rape happens, but statistics are difficult to obtain. If a woman has unprotected sex, she is consenting to pregnancy. If she does not want a baby, she needs to use contraception. I am aware of the anticontraceptive movement which makes this difficult, but I am an advocate that fights for contraceptive rights.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

The issue arises again with applying your own moral beliefs to something that affects others with vastly different morals. I will say harshly that I do not believe an embryo is a "baby with rights.". That is your belief that is not strongly supported by science. I do not believe it is "killing babies" to abort in the earliest terms of pregnancy at all. Women naturally miscarry all the time and do not ever know it. That being said, religious text does not apply when it comes to the legal argument that an embryo or fetus has rights. I am not concerned with the religious aspects of early term abortion as we live in a world where many forms of death are legalized and even condoned by religions or done for the greater good. It is unselfish to abort in many situations. You ask for an example of text where killing babies is acceptable - I will cite your own text in your first response ("unless it is an ectopic pregnancy). An abortion for ectopic pregnancy is technically the same as any other abortion, but you personally feel that moral responsibility is relieved because of the medical dangers involved. The idea seems contradictory because you say the baby should have rights starting at conception.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

I disagree. The baby is a genetically different person with rights. It is not part of the mother's body. If a woman does not want a baby, she needs to close her legs or use birth control. No one has the right to kill another person for no reason. It is truely an Orwellian society when unborn babies are killed because the mother is too selfish to use birth control. You have to show me any text, religious or otherwise that says killing babies is morally acceptable. If the baby is the same before birth as after, the logical conclusion is that the unborn baby has rights.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

A baby being genetically the same at conception (or at any stage before birth) as it is after birth does not mean it has the capability to make choices or use rights at all stages. Much like children have limited rights through the age of 21, because they do not posses the ability to make such choices. The parents are responsible to make important choices for them. This principle can be applied to a fetus before a certain point in development. The fetus has no cognitive ability to make sound decisions. The woman's choice to not bring a fetus to term is akin to an adult making a judgement call regarding their offspring.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

We have not decided babies are not human. People are aware that a form of life is being terminated and are not offended enough before the 24th week to outlaw it. Laws condone death under specific circumstances like early term abortion. I respect that you do not like the idea of abortion, especially in the 20th-24th weeks I'm guessing - but many women are just as offended by the idea that it is not their choice. Some simply do not find anything wrong with terminating a pregnancy in the early stages for legitimate reasons. Examples of extreme late term abortion and mothers who suffer permanent medical complications are not the norm.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

It is very dangerous to decide that babies are not human. Most abortions saying that something is true because the majority believes it is the bandwagon fallacy. Just because something is a sincere belief, does not make it true. We need to be governed by the rule of law which supports the inherent worth of each human being from the time their life starts onward. I empathize with mothers with an unwanted pregnancy, because I had a pregnancy scare once, but I need to think with logic that our life begins at implantation and deserves to be protected.
Non-late term abortion should remain legal

Thank you for your response. Since you make so many interesting points, I'll use a bullet point system to review. " "Starting at fertilization, the organism is genetically seperate from both parents. The baby can feel pain as soon as 12 weeks, and can survive as soon as 6 months." In response to this, all claims with the last being the exception are backed by dubious medical evidence. The courts were not swayed by these pieces of evidence. I would assume this is because our society tends to agree with capital punishment, euthanasia for terminally ill and war. Also, science can create a way to anesthetize the fetus to address such concerns. I understand the repulsion many feel at that statement. But I must point out that as repulsive as I find it, I believe the war and mass euthanasia of animals regularly practiced by this country is necessary. That along with capital punishment, war, euthanasia of terminally ill people and abortion seem to be some harsh realities of living in a large population with varied religious and moral beliefs. " "The unborn are human beings with rights. A lot of the abortion methods are harmful to the mother and baby. The baby has his or her body torn to pieces in most abortion methods, and that can cause pain to mother and child. I feel it is wrong to kill babies like that." In response to this I just have to say that fetuses past 24 weeks are at a point where many would agree that they have rights. As far as most abortions being harmful to the mother - this statement is simply untrue. (Non late term) Abortion is generally a relatively safe and simple procedure, the pill being the simplest. Life is full of health risks and abortion is one of the lesser risks if not done repeatedly. Illegal abortions are by far more deadly and unsafe with much higher risk of complications. Please be mindful that abortions are similar to alcohol - prohibition has never actually worked. " "What about the baby's right to choose? If a woman does not want a baby, there are many contraceptive methods out there." You are again making a point based on personal belief that is not collectively held by all people hence why the courts have ruled the way they have. To assume that every couple or single woman are incapable of error or other issues avoided with easy access to birth control is to live in a fantasy world where all these unwanted children are adopted and loved. It is simply not realistic. There are not enough people to take care of the children in need as it is, I can't imagine adding more. The foster system is not an answer.