BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In America, Abortion is not murder.

"I ask con, What other ways can you view the lawfulness of something other than a "Is it legal" view? " There are multiple aspects to the legality of abortion, Which I will go over later in this argument. I was thinking of a more thrown around word standpoint, Not as pertaining to actual law, But one's opinion on how bad something is or how moral it is. Now I realize that is not a usual usage of the word, So I concede this point. I was thinking more of the "immoral" argument. For the ninth amendment argument. . . I agree on the quotes and rulings by the supreme court. We both agree that a fetus is a life, So what happened to the "right to life" in the D of I? I think that would out rule a subjective ninth amendment "right to privacy" argument. What about the baby's "right to privacy"? What makes it acceptable to kill a living being when you are essentially saying the women's subjective "rights" are more important than the baby's rights? Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder, " states that under federal law, Anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished. . . For intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens. " (https://abortion. Procon. Org/) "while the law is objective, Morality is subjective, So if the first criteria is immoral instead of lawful, The courts can be more swayed to their own personal bias in cases, Which wouldn't make the trial fair, Which would violate one of our rights. " I do not think the morality of killing a baby would be very subjective, And especially since it is recognized by law. The lawfulness of abortion can change. . . It was changed in roe v. Wade and may be voted on or changed again in coming years. I don't think it is safe to say it is "settled" law. For example, Just because slavery used to be legal, Does that mean slavery is OK because or moral because it was recognized by law? No. "If it doesn't matter if the killing is legal, Wouldn't that make the death penalty, War, Self-defense, Police shootouts, Etc, Murder as well? " No, It wouldn't. The law of abortion can change. Those things don't have the same "right to privacy" argument.
In America, Abortion is not murder.

I agree with the definition of murder. There are more aspects to make abortion murder, But I agree those would probably be the main ones, So I will go with it. 1) I agree on the rulings of the supreme court. However, The problem I have with this is the following- It depends on ones interpretation of "lawfulness. " If you are talking from a legal standpoint, I guess so, But I think there is more too it than that. The supreme court, In the decision making process, Is trying to find out whether it is lawful or not. There opinions of abortion does not represent the U. S. Population as a whole. In this case, I do not think "lawfulness" from a legal standpoint is a good criteria because there is much more to abortion than a standard murder of people that are not fetuses. I say this because it is from one independent person to another, Not a fetus and a mother connected to each other. I believe "unlawful" should be more to the side/word "immoral. " 2) I agree. Abortion is done with a woman's consent, Which is by definition purposeful. 3) I believe on the standards of the basic science "when life begins. " So if it is a living being, Which we both agree on, It would be done on one person(the women) to another(the fetus). 4) I agree it is the act of killing. I don't agree it should be up to the supreme court bias's whether it is "lawful" or not. I believe it should be the argument of "morality. " Just to clarify, You think abortion is killing, But not murder? And do you think that it is immoral, By your definition to"kill, " a baby (abortion)? Once again thank you for letting me debate you and being civil about it.
Faith is the greatest falling of mankind.

My thesis is that errant religion is only a symptom of a larger characteristic human nature, which is to want simple theories to explain the world. Some atheists believe that if religion suddenly disappeared that reason would immediately prevail. I think that if religion suddenly vanished, it would just given new life to modern pseudo-religions. A pseudo-religion provides a simple explanation to the world's problems without invoking a deity. It also enables believers to form a community to press their beliefs, and to feel superior to non-believers who have succumbed to the supposed evil. Examples of pseudo-religions abound. Think of ways to fill in the blanks: All our serious problems with _______________ are due to ___________________. Religious fundamentalists suppose all social problems are due to lack of belief in God. Anti-Semites attribute all political problems to Jews. Ralph Nader attributes all economic problems to Wall Street. Extreme leftists attribute all political problems to George Bush. Each simple belief offers a support community that promotes the idea that believers are made wonderfully special by their belief. Atheism cannot be a religion, because no deity is invoked. However, it is possible to make it into a pseudo-religion by supposing that "All of our serious social problems are due to religious belief." I give a more lengthy analysis in a blog post http://factspluslogic.com...
Faith is the greatest falling of mankind.

I will briefly state my reasoning and will elaborate wherever my opponent wishes for me to do so. The mere ideology of belief through faith without reason will call upon great destruction in the hand of "free thinkers", this is as it limits our reasoning and dimmers our ability to understand the cosmos without prejudice. mankind: a species capable of great expression and reflection of complex mind states caused by it's surroundings, also one which owes it's survival to this very trait. As it was through greater communication and understandings man was able to adapt in his primitive environment. Religion: The greatest exploiter of faith Religion has it's origins through out customs and rituals preformed by early man, this symbolic free expression was given too much emphasis on the practicality of the art in it's self and far too less on its artistic expression; leading to the birth of tradition. This mentality is by far the greatest plague on mankind, it can be directly linked to (but not souly) for our self centered understanding of our own cosmos. Armed with this prejudice we have also embarked on several "holy" endures i.e. the crusades and the Holocaust
Macro-evolution Never Occured

Biological evolution is what happened AFTER biological life came into existence. Biological evolution does NOT tell us HOW the first life began. Rather, it can ONLY tell us what happened AFTER life began. This debate challange is concerned on the premise that macro-evolution never occured. In other words, speciation in the macro-evolution level never happened.The fact is that macro-evolution is a mere scientific hypothesis ( i.e. Educated GUESS). Up-to-date, there are still NO mechanism that explains HOW a new gene is added into a genome. On the other hand, micro-evolution did occur. We have a plethora of evidence from nature that micro-evolution happens ( antibiotic resistance etc.).
Professional Wrestling is a sport

With all due respect to your first part of this debate I still find no proof that wrestling is a sport. Here is why I find this.Even though Kurt Angle came from amateur wrestling in the olympics to the WWE that does not prove anything. World Wrestling Entertainment shows such people as Jeff Hardy who is an acrobat, also it shows such people as Batista who is all show boat and Shawn Michaels who uses a super kick as his finishing move. All of this is for entertainment and not a sport. In the Olympics you have to earn medals versus in wrestling you do not have to earn anything. This is a good example of why wrestling is for show and not a sport. In the previous rounds you talked about athletics and you could not clarify or define difference between entertainment this which only brings me to one conclusion that you do not understand what the differences are. You have not proven in this debate that wrestling is a sport which brings me to the conclusion that you need to research this topic in greater detail before you bring such a debate to the table. Also this brings me to another conclusion that you do not know the difference between entertainment and sports. For example football is a sport because you do not know the outcome of the game where as in wrestling you know the outcome at the very begining. entertainment is for fun versus a sport is for competition. You could not define this or back up your statements Which brings me to the conclusion that you do not know what you are debating. Thank You for the candid debate this was fun.
Professional Wrestling is a sport

How many times do i have to explain that sports do not have to be competitive to still be sports? It seems like you are not grasping the definition that I gave in my first argument. It may not be competitive and it may be for entertainment but it is still a sport. I will define athletics as "of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training." -strength, agility, stamina are all used in professional wrestling. You have to be strong to lift somebody over your head. you have to be agile and well coordinated to pull off many of those flips and rope tricks and you have to have stamina to withstand the puishment and intense workout of being in the ring. I have read many books about wrestling and have seen how hard these athletes work. Kurt Angle, an olympic gold medalist, joined the wwe, and has praised the athlethicism hes seen in the professional wrestling ring.
Professional Wrestling is a sport

In response to your previous statement other sports do have a certain level of competition in them. They also have different levels that they compete in . For instance swimming it is a sport so you would have competition . In wrestling the winner is already chosen beforehand so they do not compete. Please define the word athletic in greater detail so to explain what it means in terms I understand . Pro wrestling and WWE are both for entertainment not sports. Here is a question for you or anyone who chooses to try to answer this. WWE is it choerographed or spontaneous, the same question goes for Pro Wrestling? Can you demonstrate to me how this is a sport if it is for entertainment?
Professional Wrestling is a sport

With regard to what you just proposed,I think that Professial Wrestling is there for entertainment purposes , I also find that in pro wrestling you sometimes can figure out who will win the match at the very start due to the fact that some wrestlers throw the matches. Millions of fans spend hundreds of dollars to fill up stadiums to cheer on their favorite wrestlers , I on the other hand watch it on free tv. These fans also yell at them and boo them . The Divas are not really wrestlers but very good acrobats, This is not a sport because it is not real competition, but is used for entertainment purposes only.Here is food for thought. Please prove to me that this is a sport, and not just entertainment.
Professional Wrestling is a sport

I believe that Pro Wrestling is a sport. A sport is defined as "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." The definition says that wrestling is often, but not always, of a competitive nature and i admit that wrestling is not. However sports arent always of competitive nature. Surfing for example, is often non- competitive. PW also requires much skill and physical prowess. You need strength and a lot of endurance to run around throwing eachother all around the ring like that. The athleticism is remarkeable. People have always given me a hard time for being a lifelong fan of wrestling. I agree that a lot of it these days is pretty pathetic, but when it comes to athletics you really have to hand it to these guys.
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

I accept. What follows is a translation of Pro's post into English for the benefit of the voters: In this debate: Pro will be arguing that Con is making a claim. Pro must show that Con is making the following claim to win the debate: It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. Con will not deny that Pro is not making a specific claim. Con must not deny that Pro is not making the following claim to win the debate: It is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. Rules of the debate #1: Do not intentionally argue plainly the morality of using babies for slave labor beyond reasonable limits Rules of the debate #2: Best floccinaucinihilipilification of opponents argument wins. Rules of the debate #3: You may change the definition of a word in the resolution at anytime in the debate, as long as it: Fits the grammar. Is from some dictionary. Is being used to bias the resolution argument in your favor. However, it is the voters' job to decide whether to accept definitions from Pro or Con, when both sides offer definitions.
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

In this debate:Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. Con will not be arguing, that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. Rules of the debate #1: follow the rules of debate which are: follow the rules of the debate: Do not break the rules of debate Do not attempt to break the rules of debate Do not break the rule about not breaking the rules in an attempts to break rules which include the following: Breaking the rules. Intentionally argue plainly the morality of using babies for slave labor beyond reasonable limits instead of the arguable morality of said morality. Accepting the debate with a full understanding about what you are debating. Cheating. Rules of the debate #2: Best floccinaucinihilipilification of opponents argument wins. Rules of the debate #3:You may change the definition of a word in the resolution at anytime in the debate, as long as it: Fits the grammar. Is from some dictionary. Is being used to bias the resolution argument in your favor. Rules of debate #4: You don't have to follow the rules. Practicing the above rule is strictly prohibited.
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

Remember, as explained in round 2, Pro has not argued "just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " Pro must argue this, otherwise Pro will not be following the following rule: "Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified," and thus Con will automatically win.
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

2. Also, even assuming that "Pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified,"" Pro still loses, since Pro has not shown (or even attempted to argue) that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified."This is based on the following assumption: Pro has not argued."However pro has said, this is what I would argue is consistently arguable, quoting myself:" The pro argues, that arguing in and of itself is an argument, thus for it to be aruguable that arguing that babies used in slavelabor to be morally justified is to be morally justified it would have to have to be a fact that it is immoral to argue that babies be used in slavelabor, thus making any arguments null void." , Is what I was thinking of writing.But here it is closed case:Babies = human offspringimmorality = immoralarguable = able to be arguedPremise 1:Con is arguing that it is not arguable, con is also arguing it is not morally justifiedPremise 2:arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not an act in regards to morality, but an act in regards to truth.Premise X: arguing is not necessarily convincing.Premise 3: inherently, just because it can be consider morally wrong to hold the position that using babies in slave labor is morally justified, does not mean the counterpart arguing to argue such things is justifiable under a moral code, is not by necessity an immoral conjunction. This is a compositional fallacy.Premise 4:Con has argued.Premise 5: Con concludes statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definitionPremise 6:The argument that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified, has not been proven as false by con.Conclusion:Therefore it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor"Actual conclusion:Therefore pro has argued."Since Con has won, vote Con."Con has won but that doesn't mean con IS WINNING.The pro has ARGUED!!!
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

"The pro has argued. " 1. Pro has not argued "just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " Pro must argue this, otherwise Pro will not be following the following rule: "Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified," and thus Con will automatically win. 2. Also, even assuming that "Pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified,"" Pro still loses, since Pro has not shown (or even attempted to argue) that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " 3. Con has not violated the following statement: "Con will not be arguing, just that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. " 4. "Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " a. Using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (. http://www.antislavery.org...; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) b. Moral people commit morally justified acts. c. Thus, convincing moral people that immoral acts are morally justified can cause them to commit these immoral acts. d. Encouraging or tricking moral people into committing immoral acts is not morally justified. e. Therefore convincing moral people that immoral acts can be morally justified is not morally justified. f. To argue that an immoral act is morally justified, one must dispute that the immoral act is necessarily immoral. g. Claiming that an immoral act can be morally justified, is not morally justified (this follows from (e)). h. Therefore, arguing that an immoral act is morally justified in not morally justified. i. Therefore, arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. j. Statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definition (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). k. Therefore, it not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. "These are the three anamolies: [.
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

I'm afraid con has not "translated" Pro's post accurately. "Pro must show that Con is making the following claim to win the debate""Con must not deny that Pro is not making the following claim to win the debate"Pro WILL be arguing, just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. But pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. .Con will not be arguing, just that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. But con can deny anything they want. Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. These are the three anamolies:1. The con is contending to the pros position in the debate. Con wins. Therefore con has defeated the pro.2. Premise 1: The con does not understand premise 1. The pro does not understand premise 2. Therefore the con has won. Premise 2:There is only one argument. If there is only one argument, there is no longer an argument. Therefore the argument is gone. Premise 3:Premise 3 is that of premise 1. Premise 2 is that of 1. Therefore premise 3 and 2 are that of 1. The pro has argued.