BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

It seems that my opponent has misunderstood what metaethics and normative ethics are.Metaethics: the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice.[1]This basically has to do with the nature of ethics and whether we can know them. So when I ask my opponent what metaethical viewpoint he is arguing from, I am asking whether he thinks objective moral facts exist, whether they are individually subjective, culturally relative, knowable, unknowable, ext. He has not elucidated on this or provided justification.Normative ethics: examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions[2]So examples of it would be Kantianism, utilitarianism or hedonism. If my opponent argues that abortion is wrong, he must show that A.--Moral facts exist, B.--We can know these moral facts, and C.--The act in question violates a justified normative ethical system of values.My opponent tries to defend his claim that killing is wrong with this statement:if we were to kill as we felt neccessary, the whole world would be dead.This really doesn't answer my question. My opponent derives a prescriptive statement(you should not kill) from a descriptive statement(if you kill, the world would die?). Where is the bridge between these two conclusions? Even if I concede that the whole world would die if we kill as we please, how does that actually make killing wrong?As to his "normative ethics", he does not provide a reason why any type of abortion is wrong. All he does is describe some different types of abortions and how they are performed. He seems to already assume that certain things are wrong without providing a bit of justification. For the rest of the debate, he simply provides different ways in which abortions are performed as "reasons" for being against them.My opponent has not nearly upheld his BOP. Nor did he even try to refute my own reasoning. We can take this as a concession and thus I urge a Pro vote by defualt.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

I would like to apologize to my opponent for over looking (normative ethics) and (meta ethics). I will explain now. Meta Ethics: I believe that abortion is wrong. It is wrong because it is the destruction of a mistake. Human beings make mistakes to learn from them, not to run away from them in fear! A child is pure. My opponent asked why is killing wrong. Let me put it this way; if we were to kill as we felt neccessary, the whole world would be dead. This is why there are laws to prohibit such things. There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child? My opponent asked for justification. I am not sure I understand what my opponent means. I don't believe this needs justifaction. Why not just adopt the child out? It is more human than just killing the fetus needlessly. Normative Ethics: Here are my practical reasons for being against abortion: 2.Dilatation and Extraction, D&X, (Partial Birth Abortion) A.The baby is delivered feet first. The head is left inside the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture the rear of the skull at the base and the brains are sucked out. Once dead, the baby is fully delivered. 3.Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) A.Abortive procedure where the abortionist inserts a curved knife into the placenta and cuts the baby up into pieces before it is suctioned out. Done in the first trimester. 4.Dilatation & Evacuation A.An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb. 5.Mifepristone or Mifeprex (RU-486) A.A pill taken after conception that stops the absorption of Progesterone, a hormone necessary for sustaining pregnancy. Taken with misoprostol, it causes the uterus to contract and eject the newly conceived baby. 6.Partial Birth Abortion A.An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered. 7.Pregnancy Reduction A.An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb. 8.Saline Amniocentesis A.An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later. Above are many different procedures for aborting a child; I posted this link in the round prior. I was pre aware of these facts before I put the link. This is my practical reasons why abortion is wrong.
Abortion

http://carm.org... First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. Now to the debate. Notice the link above, it has in it 7 different types of abortion. I would also like to use this round to explain why I am against abortion. I think it is inhumane, mainly because it is the termination of life. There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child? Also, while the fetus is unborn, I still believe that it can feel pain. A lot of people use rape as a scapegoat for abortion. Raped or not, the child that will be aborted is innocent. "My body my choice" A lot of people use this as well. It is your body. If you feel the pleasure, why not the pain? Bringing a child into this earth is a purity within itself. Why taint purity with evil? The above is why I am against abortion. I will use the next round to counter debate my opponent.
Abortion

DefinitionsAbortion: the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. Now I know that Cliff probably saw this coming a mile away, but if we are to argue that abortion is immoral we will need to agree on an ethical viewpoint from which to judge abortion. But since I do not want to waste rounds I will resist my urges and simply define moral as humane.Humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence Burden of proof The burden of proof will be shared equally between my opponent and I. His burden will be to show why abortion is inhumane and cannot be humane and my burden will be to show that abortion can be humane.I assume that arguments will begin in R2 and as such I will pass the debate on to my opponent.
Crimea should be Russian

"Crimea being 59-60% Russian is due to Jospeh Stalin's crimes in the past." That may be, but that doesn't change the fact that the ethnic majority of Crimea is Russian. "russia has oppressed and killed people who tried to do exactly what russians are doing in Crimea. Get independence." Previously, you used Chechnya as an example. If that is what you are referring to, I will have to disagree. Chechens led armed rebellions, which is the reason behind the use of military force. "Autonomy does not mean the legal right to unilateral secession. Even if it did have the right, it would be invalid under russian occupation. Once Russia staged a military invasion, everything was illegal. And it will never be legal until Russia withdraws. Russia will face consequences from the entire world." I agree with your first sentence, BUT because Crimea is an autonomous republic, it has a constitution. This Crimean Constitution allows Crimea to manage its territory. Crimea votes to join Russia? It has full right. And yes, the world will try to punish Russia, but their attempts most likely won't be very successful. (Consider that Russia has more than enough natural resources to sustain itself and sanctions are just...petty). "There is no proof to anyone" No proof? How about the crowds of people in the streets and squares, joyfully waving a Russian flag? Also take into consideration how willingly Crimea is adopting Russian currency and such. "Russia's moves is 100% like Nazi Germany's" Very interesting that you mention that. Search up Godwin's Law. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law You say that there is no risk to ethnic Russians, and I disagree. Ukraine's government was overthrown by US-backed (listen to the so-called: F*** the EU tape), armed individuals. Not only is that in itself a threat, but also that those individuals happen to be Ukrainian nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists do NOT favor Russians. You say it was an invasion, to a certain degree, yes. But as Putin said, the soldiers were already there. They were already in the naval base and no "new" troops were introduced to the area. Also, I would like to point out that you have no evidence to support your claims of the invalidity of the Crimean vote. In conclusion, I believe that Russia's actions in the midst of chaos and rebellion in Ukraine were justified and valid. Thank you very much for the good argument.
Crimea should be Russian

"There were also russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians who collaborated with the Germans. Only the tartars were exiled. This is not a fair punishment" I agree, there were others who collaborated, but most of them were dealt with and executed. This is not part of the argument so let us continue no further on this subject. "First, one would wonder why Russia chooses to ignore 'expression of the people's will' in Chechnya, or in the soviet times before, and now claims to protect such will in Crimea. " Russia and Ukraine do not have the same constitution and you cannot apply laws from Ukraine to Russia. "As stated, Russia is not known for fair democracy, and has a history of staging elections in places it occupies." Such as? "For Russia to act as it has has been criminal, unjustified, and filled with false claims" Criminal? Technically, Russia has done nothing wrong. As you mentioned, no blood has been shed. Unjustified? That is an opinion depending on perspective. False claims? I would appreciate some examples. I will remind you that Crimea is an autonomous republic and has a constitution allowing Crimea to manage its own property. A referendum has been held and the people have made their choice. Neither the Ukrainian, nor the Crimean constitution has been violated.
Crimea should be Russian

"It so happened that the tartars sided with the Germans, meaning they were traitors which gives Stalin every right to punish them."That is a matter of opinion. Some would say Stalin was so bad no one could blame them for siding with someone else. Crimea is also a conquered territory from the ottoman empire, and not a natural part of Russia. There were also russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians who collaborated with the Germans. Only the tartars were exiled. This is not a fair punishment. "I would like to point out that in the Ukrainian Constitution, referendums are "lawful forms of expression of people's will"First, one would wonder why Russia chooses to ignore 'expression of the people's will' in Chechnya, or in the soviet times before, and now claims to protect such will in Crimea. Second, a regional referendum is illegal according to Ukrainian law. Ukrainian law does not say a regional referendum has power over questions of independence either.Third, a referendum against the backdrop of Russia Military Intervention cannot be considered an unbiased affair. From the first day of the Crimea events there were gunmen establishing strict military control of Crimea and surrounding Ukrainian military bases. This makes the current referendum illegal. Russia must withdraw and allow a UN monitored and run election to take place. If Ukrainian law even would allow it is a different question. "Now that Crimea has chosen to secede from Ukraine"As stated, Russia is not known for fair democracy, and has a history of staging elections in places it occupies. This is not a valid or recognized secession anywhere in the world and will be seen as a hostile annexation. Something not seen on this scale since the 1950s. "Although it may be considered "military intervention", Russia has rights to have troops there. An agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Russia to have up to 25, 000 troops in Crimea."Russia does not have right to impose its own military control, or to raise troop numbers, or to leave the areas assigned to them. Russia has done all of these things in violation of the treaty. Russia has basically staged a bloodless military invasion and occupation of Crimea.The referendum under such an occupation to join the occupying country is understandably met with considerable Skepticism everywhere else in the world. If what you say is true Russia should withdraw and allow the UN to go in, establish facts, and mediate an internationally agreeable solution. For Russia to act as it has has been criminal, unjustified, and filled with false claims and black flags. Russia's annexation of Crimea is similar to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudentland, both russia and germany claim to do so for 'ethnic' reasons.
Crimea should be Russian

First, I would like to address your last statement. "On a wider historical level, the only reason Crimea is so russian at all is because of Stalin"s cruelty in the 1950s. He exiled the then ethnically dominant tartars to central Asia." Much blood was spilled over this territory when fighting Nazi Germany. It so happened that the tartars sided with the Germans, meaning they were traitors which gives Stalin every right to punish them. Next, I would like to point out that in the Ukrainian Constitution, referendums are "lawful forms of expression of people's will". Also, any change to the territory of Ukraine can only be done by referendum. Therefore, Crimea had the right to decide. (Consider the fact that Crimea is an autonomous republic). Anyone is allowed to come in and vote, and since the Tartars boycotted the referendum, it is their own choice to not vote. Now that Crimea has chosen to secede from Ukraine, the decision of annexation is up to the Russian parliament. Although it may be considered "military intervention", Russia has rights to have troops there. An agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Russia to have up to 25, 000 troops in Crimea. http://rt.com... Finally, Russia already had a large amount of troops in Crimea to begin with because Russia legally has a naval base located in Sevastopol.
Crimea should be Russian

Whether or not Crimea should be russian is an objective question. The point should be that Crimea CANNOT be Russian by current events without it being entirely 100% illegal. Russia has signed 3 binding international treaties that recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. Including: The UN Charter Agreement: Russia signed the UN Charter and promised to respect the borders and sovereignty of all other nations as recognized by the UN. Budapest Memorandum: Russia signed a contractual style agreement with Ukraine to recognize its borders and sovereignty in exchange for its nuclear weapons. Russia signed similar agreements with other post-soviet states and by breaking this agreement questions the viability of all others. Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet: Russia signed an agreement to lease bases in Crimea and not unilaterally raise toops numbers. This treaty implicitly recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. Russia has also broken this treaty by invading crimea. Thus Russia CANNOT Annex Ukraine legally no matter what while Ukraine claims sovereignty over it. Ukrainian sovereignty over ukraine could be dissolved by Crimean independence, but there are strict international protocols for such delicate matters. Russia"s military intervention(a country not known for fair democracy) in Crimea makes any referendum under a biased military force illegal and impossible to recognize. Ukraine can still claim sovereignty over Ukraine and Russia cannot annex it legally. Moreover, the recent so called referendum results are clearly false and non binding. Only 60% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, while the 40% minorities of Ukrainians and Tartars boycotted the vote as it was illegal. 40% is a significant blocking minority and raises the questions of russian suppression of this minority. On a wider historical level, the only reason Crimea is so russian at all is because of Stalin"s cruelty in the 1950s. He exiled the then ethnically dominant tartars to central Asia. Crimea, not russian.
Christianity has been used more for evil than good

Yet, it is true that one does not need Christianity or any religion to commit horrible crimes, but this has nothing to do with the debate. However, this has everything to do with the debate. Under my opponent’s logic, anything can be regarded as a force of evil. For example, let’s hypothetically say that the Holocaust was not caused by anti-Semitism, but rather because Jewish people ate Fruit Loops while Germans ate Frosted Flakes. Hitler used this information to eradicate Jews in Germany, because they ate different cereal which the Germans hated. Therefore, cereal would be evil, would it not? Cereal HAS been used to INSPIRE people to wage war. This is an important point that my opponent should address in his final comments, as this really knocks down most of my opponent’s examples. ANYTHING CAN and WILL be used FOR EVIL, MAKING EVERYTHING EVIL. Salem Witch Trials Once again, let’s say that the Witch Trials were caused because people carried around pen’s, and a sect of eraser carriers thought that whoever carried pens was scary and needed to be killed. Therefore, erasers are evil. Anything can be used for evil, so everything is evil. This is clearly not the case. Furthermore, the Witch Trials were hypocritical and do not reflect all of the Bible’s teachings accurately. Inquisition Same logic. The Inquisition might’ve been caused by whole-wheat bread, therefore whole-wheat is evil. CLOSING STATEMENTS This has been a good debate so far, yet my opponent has not refuted the point that people will pray for guidance and attempt to live virtuously to enter heaven. All my opponent has shown you is that Christianity has been used for evil, BUT ANYTHING can be used for evil, so therefore everything is evil. This is clearly flawed, and therefore I have fulfilled my BOP and my opponent has not. I look forward to the final round of debate!
Christianity has been used more for evil than good

My opponent has not actually made any arguments, so I will go right ahead and present mine. I encourage my opponent to present his arguments quickly, though I thank my opponent for setting the backdrop :) I’d like to clarify the difference between the Church and Christianity. The Church is not Christianity, though it follows many Christian teachings it cannot be considered the exactly the same. Therefore, arguments involving the Church are not relevant to this debate. C1: CHRISTIANITY’S TEACHINGS Right off the bat I can tell my opponent will be bringing some wars and murders that were fuelled by religion. However, this is really irrelevant to the debate, because every person will interpret religious teachings differently. For example, Islam does not preach violence and murder. Muhammad himself non-violently ending hundreds of years of war in Arabia[1]. True, parts of Islam will preach violence in order to preserve itself, yet it also preaches that you may not start wars, all violence must be in self-defence, war must end the minute the enemy sues for peace, and decent values must be preserved. [1] Yet we still see terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. These atrocities are not the fault of Islam, the religion, yet the fault of the terrorist. The terrorist’s interpretation of his religion led to him committing these crimes, not the religion itself. Christianity is not USED FOR EVIL in these cases, merely Christianity is an excuse and unrelated to the actions themselves (as the religion preaches none of the things done, and therefore is not even relevant to the actions). The same can be said for Christianity, which preaches such lessons as “Love thy neighbour,” parables such as the Good Samaritan, “Do as to others as you would have them do to you” and many more, all teach us peace love, and friendship, and most certainly not violence. Violence itself is condemned in the bible and murder is a sin. Thus, any extremist acts in the name of Christianity cannot be blamed on Christianity itself, and therefore Christianity is not responsible for any of those actions. C2: PEOPLE’S FAITH Throughout history, people have turned to Christianity in order to give them strength. People pray to God for help in dark times. Regardless of whether or not God exists, the very idea of God and Christianity has given people strength to continue on. Throughout history, in times of great peril people have prayed for strength. Roughly 84% of Americans prayed in the last week, and 56% said they pray for family members, while 3.3% pray for strangers. [2] These people’s faith and following of Christian doctrines (love thy neighbour etc. ) has made the world a better place by increasing compassion and love amongst people. These two contentions alone have proved that Christianity is a force of good. I look forward to my opponent’s response! SOURCES . http://www.time.com... . http://www.churchleaders.com...
Christianity has been used more for evil than good

It is imperative to understand that this debate is not over whether or not Christianity IS good or bad, but rather that it has been used AS good or bad. "Good" in this argument simply refers to actions taken that are based on a morally justified basis, have helped mankind grow, learn and evolve or have brought about peace to a person or group of people. "Bad" or "evil" in this argument refers to actions that have hindered the growth of humanity, brought physical, emotional, psychological or otherwise detrimental affects to a person or a group of people. I will be arguing on the Pro side, stating that Christianity has been used more to accomplish evil deeds than to accomplish good deeds and help mankind further evolve. I would like to thank my opponent ahead of time and also to remind anyone reading and/or commenting that although this may be a very "touchy" subject, let's all remain civil. Also, I have decided to change the peraminters for this debate, allowing more words and twice as much time to respond.
The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

My opponent has failed to rebuttal any of the eight points I made. Now the south purchased weapons from places like Britain and France so they did have some supply of weapons that were made in other places. If the CSA also bought more ships from Europe they could possibly stand to the might of the USA which would allow that vital weapon trade to continue. Industrial power is not everything and in terms of tactics the CSA had some early victories because they had better generals than the USA. Men like Lee and Jackson gave victories to the south while there were some blunders such as Gettysburg, they still fought strong. Also if the south had done a scorched earth policy in Georgia during Sherman's March to the Sea then Sherman's campaign would have been in trouble. Strategy is another, had the south remained on a flexible defense remaining that included key areas protected such as several forts then you can keep a good defense. Now what happens when the CSA troops kill many Union troops? Then the Union has to bring in more from the workforce and cannot create more weapons and supplies. Not to mention that the war may get unpopular politically and if the war went completely bad for Lincoln then he would have lost the next election.