BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is morally permissible

My opponent provides proposed counterexamples to my adherence to a psychological theory of personhood - he uses the cases of people in comas, amnesia, etc. Furthermore, he seems to hold the case that being a 'human' is sufficient to be a 'person'. I'll start with the latter contention."I will be arguing that fetuses are persons in that they are human...Abortion is not morally permissible because it involves the needless killing of a human. I hope we can accept that the needless killing of a person in the traditional sense is clearly immoral. There is no crucial distinction between the two." Put into a syllogism, my opponent's argument is outlined as followed:P1. Humans are persons.P2. Abortion is the termination of a human. P3. Given P1 and P2, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is the needless termination of a person.P4. Needless terminations of persons is morally impermissible. C1. Therefore, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is morally impermissible. If my opponent were to defend his theory of personhood, he would need to explain the crucial premise that necessarily all humans are persons. What feature of being a human would grant personhood? If he can't defend this foundational point, then his entire theory collapses. Onto his objections to a psychological approach: "... what rights are given to a person in a coma who will never come out of it? Is one allowed to kill them? What about a person in a coma who has complete amnesia and remembers nothing (poor guy)? Does he have no right to life?" Both examples my opponent provides feature human beings who are psychologically impaired in some way. Both imply serious problems for a memory criterion (ability to recall memories of oneself) or just the psychological features I mentioned (e.g. ability to reason). My response is simple: a psychological continuity theory that is upheld now is often seen as a refined version of Lockean theory - that is, the memory criterion is important but is not the only way of grounding an identity relation. We can incorporate other psychological features, such as belief/desires, similar character traits, etc. that can serve as a part of a conglomerate relation of 'psychological uniqueness'. So arguably, some sort of relation can be upheld even for a complete amnesiac -- if they have sufficient similarities in character traits, goals, actions, etc. they would be the same person. Using the same example, if the same amnesiac also had erraticly different behavior, wouldn't this lead us to intuitively believe he would be a different person? If someone were to lapse into a coma indefinitley and were devoid of appropriate psychological features then they would cease to be a person in the same way fetus' are not persons.
Abortion is morally permissible

I will be arguing that fetuses are persons in that they are human. To do so, I will disprove the theory that psychology is the main criterion for deserving the moral right to life. Abortion is not morally permissible because it involves the needless killing of a human. I hope we can accept that the needless killing of a person in the traditional sense is clearly immoral. There is no crucial distinction between the two. Going with my opponent's theory, what rights are given to a person in a coma who will never come out of it? Is one allowed to kill them? What about a person in a coma who has complete amnesia and remembers nothing (poor guy)? Does he have no right to life? While this may seem like an unplausible scenario, my opponent is talking about swapping brains with other organisms. That is all for now.
Abortion is morally permissible

My argument for abortion is simple: fetus' are not persons in the sense of being morally relevant entities. The reasoning for this is that they have not psychologically developed to be entitled with rights to life and so forth. I'm incapable of giving a precise set of conditions that qualify as personhood characteristics, but I'd argue that personhood is most likely founded on a psychological account (i.e. appealing to consciousness, ability to reason, etc.). Given that abortions deal with subjects that clearly fail most if not all of these conditions, abortion is morally permissible.The job, then, is to show that my account of personhood is suitable. I'd argue a psychological account is the most likely case as it best explains issues of personal identity/personhood, and thus a psychological approach to be most plausible. It is able to answer most issues relating to identity such as the classic connundrum of what happens if your brain were to be swapped into another organism. Or the memory criterion attributed to Locke; it serves as a significant test for a criteria to be a person.The psychological approach pays special heed to mental properties fetuses' wouldn't have, providing ample ground for my position.
Abortion is morally permissible

This debate is for Freeman's tournament.This first round serves as an introduction, definitions, and parameters. My opponent can decide to start his arguments in his first round, or wait for subsequent rounds. Abortion will refer to the intentional termination of a human pregnancy. Furthermore, I will focus on first trimester abortions exclusively as the vast majority of abortions are of such. The issue of later abortions get more complicated due to the development of certain biological features - I want to focus the debate on a few primary ethical considerations.I will hope that my opponent shares the same presupposition of moral realism as I do, but he need not to. I just want to focus on having a discussion about abortion in the foray of normative ethics, not having to change this conversation into a meta-ethical or even epistemological discussion. But of course, it is ultimately up to my opponent's decision. Let's have a good debate.
Abortion is morally permissible

My opponent's response is ultimately weak, and doesn't do much to illuminate the difficulties it's supposed to point out in my position. For starters, let it note that in the Wikipedia article the sentences immediately afterward state "...or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others." I doubt my opponent is using Wikipedia as a definitive source, but I can't see what's the point in quoting it at all if it does nothing to further the debate's progression. "It would appear that my opponent believes that the killing of an indefinately comatose patient is morally permissible."Yes, I do believe such is morally permissible granted some restrictions (you can't needlessly kill comatose patients if there are emotionally attached family members who haven't given their consent). However, a suitable response I would expect should be something more than an response of intuitive shock. "The psychological argument relies on there being a set point during the fetus' development at which it reaches personhood ... This would be utter nonsense, as it would mean that the cells, already established to be an individual human, rearranging themselves in some slight manner or growing would give it this personhood."How would that be "utter nonsense"? I clearly described and argued that the acquirement of certain necessary psychological features will bring about personhood in the same way a person can mature enough to be eligible for 'adult' activities (going to the army, drinking, voting etc.). Figuring out when an entity achieves personhood, appriopriate adult intellectual maturity, etc. may be difficult and shaded in grayness but this doesn't mean there is a philosophical slippery slope - a cut off line can be argued for. "The only set point at which such a radical change in rights can occur is at conception, when a wholly unique cell is formed."Why is this so, simply being in virtue of a single cell organism? There is no reason to value this over the psychological approach, especially given how the latter answers questions of personal identity deeply interconnected to personhood. As you can defer counterexamples to my theory, I could do the same with perhaps prima facie intuitively more awkward situations - would a wholly unique human cell kept in a biological 'limbo' state (due to advances in science) be reasonably called a person with fundamentally equal moral value as rational, human adults? I would highly doubt so.
This debate should be removed by customer service.

Today, I experienced a moment of triumph... The creator of this debate has forfeited not once but two times. In conclusion to this debate, it should not be deleted by, "customer service". Don't delete it, but let this debate be a prime example of what he can accomplish. He created a debate that he himself later deemed, "stupid and needless". Why keep these kinds of people on DDO? This debate also got over 150% more views than my opponent estimated. One can only hope to be lucky enough for their debate to be deleted, i'd pray on it.
This debate should be removed by customer service.

"If you check my profile, it says I am a Christian, so I do not lie," You know the funny thing about that is, I too am a Christian. The mention that your a Christian doesn't exempt you from creating a lie. The customer service has an automated system that automatically deletes the older debates that have few votes, because they present little importance to the web community and only take up memory and clutter the debate searches. This debate will probably be deleted anyway but it gives me just enough time to be a fiend lol.
harry potter vs star trek

I would like to mention, as someone commented, Harry Potter has it's own theme park. This is a huge deal. I don't see Star Trek having its own theme park! Moving on, you mentioned that the magic in Harry Potter is impossible, this is true. However, it's a fantasy series, and fiction books. It never claimed to be real at all. Star Trek certainly has its own far fetched ideas. If the books are too long, you can still love and appreciate the movies. If you think Harry Potter has little action, you are certainly mistaken. All the Deathly Hallows movies are are action! All in all, Harry Potter over anything.
End debating now - it incites conflict.

Oh yes, the human ability to learn is fascinating but I fail to see how this is relevant to this debate.If learning begins with a question, how does one learn to ask questions or even to word them correctly? A baby asks nothing of the world but the world teaches it anyway. According to credited professors in the field of psychology,[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] there are 7 ways in which we learn: 1. Students' prior knowledge can serve to help or hinder learning.2. Students' organization of knowledge impacts how students learn and apply what they know.3. Motivation determines, directs, and sustains what students learn.4. To develop mastery, students must develop the skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply them.5. Goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback enhances learning.6. Level of learner development interacts with “course” climate to impact learning.7. To become self-directed, learners must be able to monitor and adjust their approaches to learning (pages 4–6). Nowhere here is questioning stated. Questioning is merely a means by which some trouble in learning can be cleared up. If you misunderstand something or wish to learn it a different way you can ask.As for the cat example, domestic cats being feline is a tautology and is undebatable because it is proven true by itself. To be a cat is to be feline because to be feline is to be cat-like. There is no room for debate and since there are also wild cats the latter exmaple was of course false, no-one could debate for that.The rest of Con's argument is rambling about how natural the urge to debate is and how we should accept the competitive side of debating because it uses logic.I'm not sure where Con even proved a single thing he stated but would like to refer to the fallacy he used to link the urge and curiosity for debating to justify its continuation: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... Debating is an aggravating hobby/activity and it encourages those who engage in it to become hostile and arrogant in their views. It forces any and all opinions of a person to suddnely become tools and game-changing factors so it pushes people to the edge and creates a very bad set of social skills for those who are good at it because unlike casual or abd debaters, those who are actually godo at ti and enjoy it are trapped in an addiction that ends up proving itself right becuase of thier ability to debate agianst those who say it's bad for them.In the end you can twist the truth well but it doesn't make the truth less true. Debating does nothing to help us find the truth, if anythign it helps people who are strayed far from it to justify their illegitimate views.
End debating now - it incites conflict.

The human ability to learn is quite fascinating. Learning usually starts with a question. As children we are naturally inquisitive. Like little scientist curious about the world around us. As we grow and we start to catch on to speech we learn that questions are good, and they open doors for more questions. As we know not all questions have answers that are easily found. And some questions have no answers found at all. This is what leads to our ability to reason. We have truths and then we have those thoughts that aren"t true. An example would be all house cats are felines. This is a true statement or premise. A false statement would be all felines are house cats. This is a false premise. This is why we have debates because of clashing thoughts or logic. It is what helps us grow and learn by allowing one another to voice our premises in order to build an argument and counter opposing arguments using logic and evidence to support that logic. It shouldn"t be only about winning or being right but working to understand you opposition"s point of view and finding common ground eventually. Of course competition is relevant it keeps us at our best but it can also bread fraudulent actions. In a fair debate both sides use strong logic in order to get there points across. There are ways to do this unfairly; this consists of using bad or illogical strategies known as logical fallacies. Therefore, ending debates will leave us in a place were no one questions the status quo meaning no change for the better or worse. I will now give the opposition a chance to further explain his position on this topic.
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

First off, the burden of proof lies on PRO in this debate. ELEMENTSWe know that elements exist. I can prove this using the following example. Humans require oxygen to function. They do not do so with carbon. In fact, carbon monoxide can kill humans.If humans can use oxygen to function, and not carbon in the same way, there must be something inherently different between carbon and oxygen. These differences have been empirically found with empirical evidence (differing numbers of subatomic particles, differences in mass and structure, etc.) If they were only in one subatomic particle, these differences would not be possible.NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN WEAPONS AND ENERGYIn a nuclear reaction, numerous atoms are shot at uranium-235 atoms. An extra neutron hits the nucleus then forming uranium 236.At that point the atom splits giving off 3 electrons and energy. There must be multiple sub-atomic particles, since there are mulitple atoms.http://www.physics4kids.com...If the universe were made of one sub-atomic particle, there would be no difference between anything!REBUTTAL TO MY OPPONENT1. Having multiple and differing atoms is NOT wasteful. Wasteful is defined by dictionary.com as:"given to or characterized by useless consumption or expenditure" Is it wasteful to have a variety in our own existence? Things with differing characteristics amplify our lives and diversify them. Furthermore, if nature is not wasteful and would not allow atoms to be wasteful, how does it allow humans to be wasterful?
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

REFUTATION OF MY OPPONENT 1. Does something have do be visible to be in our dimesion? We know that light travels through our dimension since we can see it. When we turn off the lights in a room, we can see the effects. It is not true to say that light is not visible in our dimsension. There is no reason to Pro's theory : a. Has little to do with the debate topic b. Would require conversion across dimesions, which by definition is impossible c. Is based on the idea of aether particles, which my opponent has not provided a reason as to its existence. Furthermore, why is the current theory nonsense? What is open space made of? Empty space for the most part. 2. I never stated that if most scientists believe something that it is correct. All I was stating was that the more corroboration, the more research, and the more critique there is into something, it is more likely to be correct by virtue of the process and the scientific method. 3/4. a. The Big Bang is absolutely NOTHING like the Bible story of creation. That is the reason WHY so many creationists hated it. b. This conflict with religion is present also in theories such as evolution and heliocentrism. 5. The Big Bang is becoming more and more proven every day. We know the universe is expanding, we have found plenty of background radiation, etc. When you draw all this back far enough, the Big Bang is the strongest solution. 6. It is not true to say that protons, neutrons, and electrons must be the same because they can be converted into energy. Electrons are elemental particles, but protons and neutrons are not. This is a fundamental difference. It would be like saying that an apple and a banana are the same thing because they can both be converted into ATP. The problem with that is that there are other results of the reaction. MY OWN ARGUMENT No new mass can be created in a chemical reaction. If protons and electrons are the same, then they would be convertible in a chemical reaction. Since a proton is much larger than an electron, new matter would have to be created to convert a proton into an electron with no other particles involved. This contradicts the previous law.
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

REFUTATION OF MY OPPONENTThis debate has been based on the ideas of modern science. If university professors and researchers can not be trusted, then we should say that subatomic particles, atoms, or germs do not exist at all. The truth is, there are too many scientists corroborrating (backed up by performable research) to keep secrets so large. Furthermore, scientists are ruthless disprovers. Many people will try to disprove a theory before it becomes accepted. My opponent has also stated the authority has told him lies. The truth is that discovery is dynamic-we are constantly learning new things, and this is what makes science so great-we are constantly able to improve our knowledge. Further refutation:The speed of light is a speed. It is 299792458 meters per second. (ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org...)Secondly, how does this prove that there is only one type of subatomic particle. All that was asserted was Robert Distinti's theory (I'm guessing on that one), and has not shown how protons, neutrons, and electrons, are the same substance in different "forms".
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

My opponent has not addressed the matter that university professors need a complicated universe in order to preserve their integrity and importance as qualified professors. If my theory is correct, then, many university professors may not be required any more because the universe is simple and doesn't require complicated theories to explain it. This also means that the Hadron Collider and LIGO experiments which cost trillions of dollars are a waste of time and money. Note - The research system would never agree with my theory even if it was true. Thus, we can say that the research and university system can't be trusted when it come to research of sub-atomic particles. In general, research into both germs and sub-atomic particles are similar because they are both invisible to the naked eye. Thus, scientists can make up any old rubbish that they please to explain these phenomenon and the public has to agree because it is assumed that they have special knowledge of these matters. The world we live in is full of illusions which are created by so called 'qualified experts'. When I was young, I used to agree with these authoritarian people and I respected their opinions. But, with the advent of the personal computer and internet, I have been able to access this secret information and have found that I was lied to on many matters. At first, I thought that these lies were limited to just a few subjects. But, on further investigation, I started to realize that there were hundreds, if not, thousands of cases where lies and half truths have been pasted off as truth or theory. Eventually, I found websites that disproved many scientific theories which people have taken for granted during the last 200 years. The sites of Robert Distinti, Srinivas Roa Gonuguatla and Bill Gaede all show alternative theories to the standard model of physics. Further explanation of my theory - Empty space is not empty. It contains fundamental particles which spin at the speed of light. These particles are not attached to one another. The speed of light is a dimension. Its not a true speed. Matter is only sub-atomic particles in rotation around one another. Thus, if there is no rotation of particles, then, there is no matter. The sun gets its energy from incoming aether particles which are pushed together which forces them to stop spinning and creates neutrons or no spin ethons. (Refer to Robert Distinti for a definition of an ethon.) http://www.youtube.com...
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

DEBATE TOPIC MISUNDERSTANDING From the debate the debate title and your fisrt argument, I assumed the debate topic was: there is one subatomic particle in the whole universe. After hearing the second argument by my opponent, I now view the debate topic as: there is only one type of subatomic particle. This is my mistake, and I apologize to Pro for any misunderstanding. Having said this, I will still stand against the latter statement.*REFUTING MY OPPONENTS' ARGUMENTSFirst off, the math presented does not make sense. 3*6, or three groups of six does not equal three groups of three, or 3*3Thus, we don't come back to the number three. Even if we did, it would not make sense to unite this to the argument that there is only one subatomic particle. It only would show that three is somehow related to subatomic particles, which could easily refer to protons, neutrons, and elctrons.PRESENTING MY OWN CASEQuarks make up protons and neutrons. They do not make up electrons. They are made of leptons instead. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...Quarks and leptons are fundementally different. It can not be claimed that something made with no quarks, is the same as something made of quarks, but in a different form. They are simply too fundementally different. It would be like comparing water to sulfuric acid by calling it "water in a different form".