BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

con goes on about how rights are not something that can be lost. what about the infant's rights? con quibbles about the use of the word 'prioritizes'. are society's rights prioritized when they say a smoker can't smoke in public places? in a matter of speaking, of course. con would make it an issue of semantics an say everyone has equal rights. the point there is the smoker doesn't always get what he wants, the point here is the mother doesn't always get what she wants. con says the mother cannot assume the risk of pregnancy given she did not necessarily intend it. this is a nonsequiter. the idea of assuming a risk doesn't require the consequence be intended, in fact it almost always involves a non intended act. there is a risk to having sex that you will get pregnant. the mother assumed that risk. con says it doesn't matter how along she is in pregnancy. so it's okay to terminate a week before her due date, just because she wants to, and not for exceptions like health of the mother? you're free to feel this way, but it's extremely limited how many people agree with you. and, it doesn't really address how a mother didn't abort sooner when it was morally grayer. she had plenty of chance. and, you didn't address the hypothetical of an accident being caused by someone, where the other is attached to you, and you can't separate the people for a few months. no one would say it's okay for the person who caused the accident to kill the victim. con says a pregnancy being terminated after 20 or so weeks is a premature birth. this is also a nonsequiter. i'm not sure what he's trying to say.
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

Women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy regardless of how far along they are in their pregnancy. Rights are not dictated by whether or not a person is pregnant. And they certainly are not revocable simply because a person is in a particular trimester. Rights are lifelong and inalienable without due process. And being pregnant is not a crime - you do not lose any of your rights just because you are with child. My opponent makes the claim that sometimes an infants rights should be prioritized. However, under the law ALL persons shall have equal rights. Infants should NOT be afforded special rights over another person simply because they are infants. To give them priority would be in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 and legally binding to all countries of the United Nations. Next, my opponent says that the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. This is both demonstrably false and also irrelevant to an infants rights taking priority over the mothers. The CDC estimates that 49% of pregnancies are unintended. And merely being pregnant does not mean that you are "assuming risk." A woman does not wave her rights merely because she is pregnant nor does she enter into a contractual arrangement to continue being pregnant. A woman has full rights over the use of her own body at all times. Another person does not have ANY rights over the use of her body at any time. The fetus has the right to life. But it does not have the right to life by violating another persons rights. If a pregnancy is terminated after 20-22 weeks it is not an abortion. Its a premature birth. And at that time the care and well being of the child is transferred to the state. The state cannot force you to look after the well being of the child after birth . . . nor can the state do so before birth. In closing, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we as a society do recognize infants have person hood. What we don't recognize is that one persons rights should be prioritized over another persons rights.
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should be prioritized. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there (and earlier but again not the point being debated), an argument could be made that she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the government? why not the mother who is more proximate?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about person hood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, or perhaps an issue or rape, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

Pro has completely failed to support their conclusion that a woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion. Pro never address' when it is too late to have an abortion, why women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions later in their pregnancies, and under what circumstances a woman should or should not have the right to a late abortion. I will now restate the reasons why I think that women should be allowed to have later abortions. Firstly, I accept that a fetus has human rights. However, I do not accept that a fetus has rights to someone else body. A drunk driver can not be forced to donate a kidney or lung to a victim - and a drunk driver is guilty of a crime. Women should not be forced to give up access to their body parts - and they haven't committed a crime. Second, an abortion after 22 weeks becomes a late termination and the child usually survives outside of the mothers womb on life support. This means that late term abortions result in the survival of the child. Telling woman they have to have abortions early on could well result in more fetus' being killed because woman would be having their abortions before the 22 week marker. And life support would not be an option. Also, with babies born before 26 weeks over 80% will make it to adult hood. This alone should be a good enough reason to keep later abortions. Lastly, studies have consistently shown that when women have abortion rights there is considerably less infanticide, teen age drug use, teen age arrest rates, and teen age childbearing. All of them go down. These are positive effects on society. Banning abortions, even in later stages, would have negative and far reaching repercussions. In closing, I would urge the person who is arguing Pro to read up on the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy. Your statement that this is a philosophical argument and therefore you 'don't have to provide facts / only argue logic' is not valid for this debate. Restricting woman's abortion rights is what's called an A-Posteriori issue - it exists in the real world and needs to be addressed by empirical information. It is not an esoteric discussion that can only be addressed by analytic distinctions. I think half an hour spent learning the difference between the two would be of great value to you and would go a long ways to helping you formulate arguments in your future debates. Thanks for the challenge, Codedlogic
Oswald either didn't do or didn't act alone in J.F.K's assassination

I claim plagiarism on you because while searching for supporting evidence I found http://www.usnews.com... and it's word for word the same and no quotes or even you citing the source, that is illegal and has consequences you know. Anyway... Back on topic According to paragraph 9 in the "A Product of His Life" Section it clearly states "The question now is whether the report will satisfy those, especially abroad, who have insisted that there must have been a conspiracy in the assassination. The commission attempted to answer, specifically, every such theory and rumor." (http://www.nytimes.com...) in which disproves the the commission tried to answer theories of the people, but they cant. Proving that Oswald acted alone.
Oswald either didn't do or didn't act alone in J.F.K's assassination

Fifty years ago Friday, Lee Harvey Oswald fatally shot President John F. Kennedy " or so concluded the Warren Commission, the group convened by President Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination. Officially, it was accepted that Oswald fired three shots from the window of the Texas Book Depository and had no accomplices. The commission didn"t nail down a specific motive, but said, "He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. Long before the assassination he expressed his hatred for American society and acted in protest against it." Yet despite the commission"s findings, many still question the events of November 22, 1963 and what really happened at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. In 1979 a House Select Committee concluded that JFK's assassination was likely the work of a conspiracy, for example. Conspiracy theories abound, alleging either that Oswald was part of a larger organization working to take out the president or was, to use his term, a "patsy." One theory also alleges that Oswald was trying to kill someone else that day " Texas Gov. John Connally rather than Kennedy. John Kelin, author of a book on the JFK assassination, said that independent analysis of the facts surrounding that day on Dealey Plaza clearly show there was a conspiracy. He provides a host of popular theories: In its report, the Warren Commission " tasked by President Lyndon Johnson with investigating the assassination " placed a gunman on the sixth floor of a building along JFK's motorcade route through Dallas. Such a gunman would have been behind the presidential limousine when the shots were fired. Yet of the 121 Dealey Plaza witnesses whose statements appear in the commission's published evidence, 51, by one count, said gunshots came from the right front " that is, from the infamous grassy knoll. Only 32 thought shots came from the building, while 38 had no opinion. There is much more than this, of course: Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw unidentified armed men in the vicinity; witnesses whose observations suggest a radio-coordinated hit team; three Dallas cops who encountered fake Secret Service agents; and one who testified to meeting an hysterical woman screaming, "They're shooting the president from the bushes!" http://www.youtube.com...
Oswald either didn't do or didn't act alone in J.F.K's assassination

Even if Oswald did do it alone, we will never know. As you know, a nightclub owner named Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald two days before assassination. But why? Ruby's family stated they never knew Jack owned a gun! I have a theory. That the whole assassination was planned, and that someone else assassinated him, but Oswald was convicted only because he was there, and he had some dirt on whoever planned it. Then they met up with Jack, gave him a gun, and probably bribed him to assassinate Oswald. Oswald may have had secrets they didn't want getting leaked out. So they silenced him. Who would do such a thing? Well, citizen think it was the Al Qaeda, or even Nazis at heart! But others think it was the C.I.A. N one will never know for sure, but this video has some solid facts. http://www.youtube.com...
Not following the set moral standard

Okay, So my argument is that people don't have to follow set morals. Reason one: Religious morals mean nothing if you do not believe in that/those god/s. Reason two: Not being subjected to a religion gives you a choice in your morals Therefore, people have a choice to believe in morals or not. example, if I decided I wanted to steal money from a bank (and I could), most people would say that is bad. Why? Because god said it was bad. Okay, ask atheists and they would say because people are hurt in the process. When the first person came onto this earth by whatever means, there were no laws. Laws are created from morals over what people don't want to happen as a protection force. Therefore, in the beginning, there were no morals because there was no danger. Why do people follow morals if there are no laws? The ten commandments are just morals. If god exists, sure they came from god, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them. we always have a choice. we have always had a choice. Morals were made to keep people from helping themselves. Example, Say I was poor and penniless by no fault of mine and I robbed that bank. Everyone would say I'm a bad person because I robbed a bank. But am I really so bad? I robbed the bank for survival. Should that merit me being put in jail over everyone Else's success? In the end that is all it comes down to. Survival. But then, its always every man or woman for him or herself. Example 3, say I decided to live on government land that they are not using because I have no money, and no land of my own, and that land has never been used by the government or anyone else. Why should I not be able to live on that land? Because its the governments? What is so wrong with me living on it? Why does the government have land it is not going to use? If I am homeless, and I decide to make a small cottage and a farm plot on that land and the government comes and says I cant live there, then where can I live? The government is overriding morals, so why cant the common everyday person override those same morals? Nowadays, nobody can live for themselves. It must be for the good of everyone. If I wanted to go live alone I couldn't without having to help other people. So, I leave it to you to argue why I should not be able to abandon everyone else's morals.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

Realistically: Isn't it impossible for anything to exist? But realistically we assume that something does exist. I think therefore I am and all that existential stuff. Though existence ultimately descends into the realms of imaginary magic. And besides: Relatively speaking viruses are little monsters. As are we. And if he was not so ashamed that he didn't have to wear pants all the time, Then maybe those fungal pathogens wouldn't make him scratch his bollocks all the time. Or maybe not of course. So: In time and space as all those bits and bobs flicker in our imagination and any other imagination that cares to consider things. Can Pro actually determine reality? Therefore: If my opponent can prove that viruses do not exist and are not logical entities, Then they can easily win the debate also. I do not particularly care either way. But would they just promise to let me know if they can. Then I can stop worrying about the cost of electricity and plastic waste in the oceans and asteroids and haemorrhoids and any other imaginary impending doom scenarios. Good luck!
Germs are not the cause of disease.

The term "Germ" can represent many things and is not exclusively relative to disease. I would therefore suggest that Pro's contention is somewhat naive. Despite what Antoine Bechamp might have to say on the matter. The term "Pathogen" is probably a better descriptive of disease causation by micro-organism. True or False? Common respiratory infections result from the inhalation of a viral pathogen and not from the exhalation of a viral pathogen.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

1) Pro assumes dissatisfaction on my part. Why? 2) "True or False" is a simple direct question in response to Pro's minimalist approach to the debate. Pro loosely promotes theory, But without substance. 3) Therefore Pro must elaborate their position to enable the debate to move forwards. That is to say: The burden of proof started with the instigator and has not yet shifted. 4) Substance constitutes a debate and Pro is clearly lacking in substance. 5) Realism and existentialism or not? 6) Yes. It all boils down to the same thing in the end. Ha Ha.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

My oponent clearly was not satified with the subject matter and title of the debate. Despite his dissatifaction he still proceeded with the debate and also demanded that the subject matter of the debate be changed to his liking. Thus, Once he had created a new subject topic, Then, The responsiblity of proof shifted over to the new insigator. Quote from Con "True or False? Common respiratory infections result from the inhalation of a viral pathogen and not from the exhalation of a viral pathogen. "Thus, It is now con who has the burden of proof. Also, Yes/No and True/false answers. Does not constitute a debate. Quote "Realistically: Isn't it impossible for anything to exist? "Answer - Yes, Con. You don't exist! Lol
parental irresponsibility is the cause of the high rate of school dropout

According to a research conducted in the university of Cape Coast, South Africa. to determine the cause of the high rate and percentage of school dropout in the country. The school drop out rate was 51%. Their statistics explained that 5% dropped out because their parents were irresponsible and showed no care about the consequences of their actions. Considering the remaining 46% who dropped out for other reasons such as; lateness absenteeism, teenage pregnancy peer influence the urge of pursuing their talents, Bad societal values, 'get rich quick' attitude, lack of proper teacher-parent-interaction, psychological disorders o other physical diseases, the will of the child, the influence of the media, The ratio of parental irresponsibility to the other causes, 1:9. Totally incomparable. So therefore, if parental irresponsibility were to be decreased. It would not cause any intense or much alteration in the high rate of school dropout because only very few number of students drop out of school because of their parents irresponsibility. It is neither the sole nor the major cause. It is biased for parental irresponsibility to be blamed for THE cause of the HIGH RATE of school dropout. That is what the motion should be based on. In High Schools and Tertiary level, a very large proportion of students live in the boarding house and hostels respectively. These students for a greater part of the year, live outside the influence of their parents, their behaviors,actions, deeds thoughts,choices are influenced by their peers. Those they regard to as' school mother' or 'school fathers' when these students acquire bad habits, which causes disillusionment, resulting in poor grades and eventually causing them to drop out of school. This can not be blamed on the parents. It is also unfortunate that most often, society accords so much respect to the rich irrespective of how their wealth was acquired. Everybody therefore wants to be rich. This is the obscuring agent that beclouds the mind of an intellect, confusing him as to what be wants to become in future and the way in which he should attain that position. That is why you find so many children engaging in armed robbery, cyber crimes, kidnapping and even prostitution. Coping with their education would no longer be an existing option for them. God didn't create humans and said 'do only good' No, we have a choice, to do good or bad. our line of actions determines the consequences. A great number of students drop out of school for reasons other for the unwillingness of their parents to perform their parents to perform their duty. period.
parental irresponsibility is the cause of the high rate of school dropout

Although there can be many existential factors that can lead to a normative high school drop out rate, I argue that "parental irresponsibility" is the factor that chiefly contributes to this phenomenon. I agree that the dropout rate is not *solely* attributed to parental irresponsibility, but the main point should be that addressing this cause as the chief factor for such high dropout rates will significantly decrease such dropout rates better than any other factor, even existential ones.
the i dont know position means, i know its false

OBSERVATIONConcession by omission - Pro has CONCEDED my interpretation of the resolution. PRO's CASEC1: "I haven't talked about knowledge"Pro asserts that "Know is the opposite of knowledge," but this is a bare assertion. "Knowledge" is the abstract-noun form of the verb "know". C2: "Know=Physical Experience"This is ascribing to a position of epistemological empiricism, which has to be justified, else can be dismissed as a bare assertion. "i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, so i know its false for me to say i see a dog in my room"This is only relevant to Pro's INTERPRETATION of the resolution that I challenged and dismissed in R2. CONCLUSIONPro still fails to fulfill BOP, instead making bare assertions, so presume Con. Over to Pro...
the i dont know position means, i know its false

== Resolution ==Pro says I've misinterpreted the resolution, but I've merely *restated* the resolution -- Pro is changing the resolution as he wants. In R2, Pro changed the resolution to say a position of "I don't know" refers to *knowledge* that you don't know, but that's obvious. Debate Theory. The resolution change is abuse of the debate system. (1) Changing resolutions is generally considered unacceptable conduct, and (2) Pro's interpretation of the resolution is stating a definite and obvious fact -- such facts cannot be used as resolutions since they aren't even debatable. This is abuse of debate since it guarantees an automatic Pro win since the resolution, in the interpretation that Pro takes. Thus, the resolution change cannot be accepted. == Rebuttal ==The BOP lies *entirely* on Pro, yet Pro hasn't made any arguments to affirm. "as certain i am that i see rocks is as certain i am that i dont see god"Pro fails to establish how this is relevant to the resolution. "false=imagination=imaginary=fantasy"This is equally irrelevant. Until Pro fulfills BOP, presume Con.
the i dont know position means, i know its false

I accept. My interpretation of the resolution: "A position of 'I don't know' is the same as a position of 'I know it's false'." In another words, *any* agnostic position on any subject is the same as knowledge that it's false. == Definitions ==Know - "to perceive directly; have direct cognition of; to understand and have a clear and complete idea of." [1]False - "not true or accurate; based on mistaken ideas." [2]== Sources ==[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...