BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You shouldn"t believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Believing on insufficient evidence doesn"t mean that your thoughts or your beliefs are incomplete. If you truly believe in something and it holds an importance to you than why is that a waist of time? Are you telling me that having a favorite color, food, or animal is a belief not worth having? Is that a belief that should withhold a great deal of sufficient evidence? Not every or even all beliefs should contain sufficient evidence, because you"re foolish to think that just because something is proven to be "right" doesn"t mean it is. Everyone places a bias standard on a belief no matter what the situation is so, to say every belief that you contain is backed up by substantial evidence is you being foolish, because you know that"s not true. According to James, he states, "Maybe beliefs themselves are not (or aren't often) directly voluntary, but the ways we form and maintain them-by looking for evidence or not looking for it, considering it or not considering it, letting ourselves be swayed by irrational factors or resisting their influence- are often up to us." Stating that whether we like it or not be base everything on OUR personal choices, thoughts, and opinions, which are formed through insufficient evidence. MP [re]: Insufficient evidence is required to form beliefs └> SP[ec]: evidence is not essential for all beliefs  └>SP[s]: Bias" are placed on certain beliefs   └>SP[q]: You"re foolish to believe that your beliefs don"t contain faults  └> SP[ri]: " Maybe beliefs themselves are not (or aren't often) directly voluntary, but the ways we form and maintain them-by looking for evidence or not looking for it, considering it or not considering it, letting ourselves be swayed by irrational factors or resisting their influence- are often up to us." └>SP[s]: stating that whether we like it or not be base everything on how personal choices, thoughts, and opinions, which are formed through insufficient evidence.
A Woman Who Rapes A Man Should Not Be Allowed To Have An Abortion Without His Consent

1: "However, when a woman rapes a man she violates his right to his body, and so rightly should be considered to forfeit her right over her body in regards to any resulting pregnancy. " This seems highly impractical. Let's just consider that this man has just faced incredible trauma, he will now likely have some sort of vengeance or payback in his mind, pride take center stage. Given the control over someone else's body, forcing the woman to go through in having this child will seem like a form of justice, the child isn't considered at all in this scenario. 2. "If the woman has an abortion the man may feel responsible and that may worsen the psychological trauma. " Is this sourced? Speaking from my personal standpoint, if this happened to me, I wouldn't feel responsible, and that wouldn't feel like my child as I didn't consent. I already do not have legal responsibility to take care of this child as the non-consensual victim here. Thus, if the woman got an abortion the responsibility would likely not take a toll. And how would the man know? He and the woman are likely already far away from each other. If there isn't already a heated legal battle involved, then I definitely do not see a man, or a woman in a reverse situation, want to be around their rapist. Fear isn't really an issue, since that would be blurring the line between a rape, and some sort of domestic or relationship abuse, which is an entirely different issue. I haven't heard of somebody attacking and raping a woman sticking around them, or vice versa. I have a feeling that it would be similar reversed. 3. "Since the woman violated the man's right to choose she should lose her right to choose, and only be allowed to have an abortion if the man consents to it. " An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, again, this is impractical. Even if he forced her to go through with the pregnancy, and give birth to this child, nothing is stopping either of them for putting this child up for adoption. Really, all pro is implying is that this is justice, this is revenge. In a legal sense, it would be much more practical for the woman to have a forced abortion, then face prison time. To re-iterate, the child should be take center stage, and should be the most important aspect. If neither of them wants the child, but the man forces the woman to go through with the pregnancy, you just have another child up for adoption. This isn't beneficial to anyone but the man's sense of pride and revenge. I urge my opponent to show how this would be beneficial in any other area but emotional.
A Woman Who Rapes A Man Should Not Be Allowed To Have An Abortion Without His Consent

Generally a woman is entitled to have the right over her own body, including whether to carry a pregnancy to term.However, when a woman rapes a man she violates his right to his body, and so rightly should be considered to forfeit her right over her body in regards to any resulting pregnancy.In cases of rape the needs of the victim are paramount. A man who is raped by a woman, subsequently getting the woman pregnant will already be dealing with a great deal of psychological trauma from the rape. If the woman has an abortion the man may feel responsible and that may worsen the psychological trauma.Since the woman violated the man's right to choose she should lose her right to choose, and only be allowed to have an abortion if the man consents to it.ClarificationBefore someone starts into this debate trying to say that men can't be raped I'll point out the fact that yes, men can be raped. A man can have an erection against his will, and fear can be a contributing factor, especially in cases of rape. Even if the man is sexually aroused, if he has decided he does not want to have sex, that is rape.http://condor.depaul.edu...
Should political parties be abolished.

There isn't much else to state. CON accuses me of "misinterpreting" his intentions, though the resolution was clear from the beginning. The resolution was the following: "Should political parties be abolished? "I did in fact read his opening arguments, and pointed out promptly that he was arguing in favor of my position, as PRO. However, he had listed himself as CON. As CON, he needed to argue AGAINST this resolution, not for it. This isn't a matter of looking at this through a different lens, or examining the glass as half full as opposed to half empty. It's a matter of reading and taking words for what they are and responding in kind. CON provided no stipulations for this debate, so naturally we were to default to the title of the debate. He selected CON, meaning that he needed to present a case against abolishing political parties. He has not done this. I am PRO, meaning that I needed to argue in favor of abolishing political parties. I have done this.
Should political parties be abolished.

When I read my opponents' scathing remarks about my response and then the actual facts it seems that we are in agreement, political parties should be abolished. However this does not make for a very interesting argument, but this is because my opponent has misinterpreted what my intentions were when I selected Con. Pro stated "CON is now trying to bend the rules and change the resolution to suit his own ends," I did not change the rules, but Pro continually insists that there is only one way to look at things in the world. Which is not true. You can look at things and see another. Like if you look at a cloud and see an animal or if you look at a tree and see a face. When I said "open minded" I did not mean that his way of viewing was wrong, I meant that there is more than one way to look at this. I choose Con because I am against political parties and you choose Pro because you are for abolishing them. When Pro said, "You cannot simply say that we should bend the rules, literally remove several worlds and change the entire meaning of the prompt, and simply pass it off as being open-minded," I didn't pass it off as open minded, that was my initial thought. And I didn't change the meaning of the prompt I merely have a different way of viewing the world. It's like a half full glass of milk and a half empty glass of milk. Two ways of viewing the same thing. Both are correct, but Pro seems to think that I called his way wrong when he said, "This is a laughable point as it presupposes that I am in some way in the wrong for viewing a duck as a duck, or a clear statement as a clear statement, or a prompt for a prompt." Pro I never said that you were wrong. Lastly, Pro you should of read my opening argument first instead of just thinking that everyone has the same mind as you. Everyone is different and thinks in a different way. We both agree that parties should be abolished, but this debate has been mostly about not agreeing on how a mind should work.
Should political parties be abolished.

When I posted Con I meant it as I am against the subject of the question, so therefore I can still win the debate. I suggest that my opponent becomes more open minded to the ways this can be viewed. I understand the confusion and I take that upon myself, but I thought this was a website for debates not chat rooms for perfectionists. If you don't want to continue the debate I understand, but I will be saddened by your retraction from this.
Should political parties be abolished.

I accept and will be arguing in favor of the following resolution: "Should Political Parties be Abolished?" Because I am listed as PRO, I will be arguing in favor of this resolution, while my opponent, CON, will need to argue against it. Reviewing his opening arguments, however, he is not supporting the position he has taken in this debate, but instead the opposite position. In fact, his arguments support my position. He argues that political parties get in the way of accomplishing things, that parties stop thinking, that parties foster a sense of groupthink, and that they are more interesting in gaining and maintaining power than looking out for the well-being of the public. All of these arguments support my position that political parties should be abolished.Therefore, I propose the following syllogism: P1: If CON affirms the aformentioned arguments that he has noted in his Round 1 piece, he has ceded ground to my position as PRO and therefore cannot win this debate. P2: If CON backtracks and attempts to argue against this resolution, as his position as CON mandates that he do, he should be seen as backtracking, and therefore he cannot win this debate.C: Therefore, no matter how CON replies, he cannot win this debate. I highly urge a PRO ballot.
Should political parties be abolished.

Political parties get in the way of getting stuff done in government. One quote by Ray Bradbury explains parties perfectly, "Anyone that belongs to a party stops thinking." Most of the time people in parties don't even agree on anything, but when it comes time to vote if the opposition is in power you vote against them. What is the point of parties? What do they do? The answer is simple NOTHING. They are a group of people not interested in our well being, but in having power. If you are my opponent answer the question "What do parties do?"
Plants ought to have the right to vote

Please note that per our comments in the comment section, that this round for me is only to address my opponent’s round 2. I will not be defending against his round 3 in this round, so those will not count as dropped arguments. ===Observation 1: Human rights extend beyond the human=== My opponent makes an observation, quoting Upendra Baxi, but not liking to a source for the quote. This quote is actually taken from the book, Human Rights, Southern Voices page 165 [1]. When the quote is taken in whole, we can see that Baxi is not talking about rights for plants, but rather that our human rights apply to the environment. He says, “Nor may we succumb to an anthropomorphic illusion that the range of human rights is limited to human beings; the new rights to a clean and healthy environment (or what is somewhat inappropriately, even cruelly, called “sustainable development”) take us far beyond such a narrow notion.” Indeed, reading further on, you’ll see that the entire book has nothing to do with rights for plants and this quote was taken out of context. In addition, the purpose of the book is to argue for a different look and different view on what we perceive “human rights” to be. It is not a statement of what they are, but what the authors wish that they were. As such, we are presented with only someone’s opinion that human rights should extend beyond humans, and no ethical foundation to support that opinion, let alone that those rights should extend to plants. This really comes down to just be one large non sequitur. ===Observation 2: Democracy is a human right=== While would normally agree that democracy is a human right (or at least the right speak and engage within government is a right). The issue with this observation is not the conclusion, but how the conclusion is reached. My opponent is basically saying that democracy is a human right because the United Nations says so. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. If my opponent accepts that the United Nation is a legitimate authority on human rights, than he automatically concedes this debate since the United Nations does not recognize the right to vote for plants. He cannot have it both ways. ===Cases=== All three cases can be addressed the exact same way. All three are non sequiturs. My opponent compares the impacts of extending human rights to oppressed humans and assumes that extending human rights to “oppressed” plants will have the same effect. This is comparing “apples to oranges” or “apples to orangutans” (that is as close as I could get to plants to humans while maintaining a similar structure in the phrase) to an extreme level. My opponent already drops these. In his rebuttal, when I brought up the economic impacts under the ethical system Utilitarianism, my opponent conceded that “Maybe, but the humanitarian impact outweighs this economic one.” [1] https://books.google.com...
Plants ought to have the right to vote

Contention 1. Utilitarianisma. Guardianship of plants.This is simply wrong. In most of the states in the US, there is no way for a mentally incompetent being to be able to vote at all; guardianship to vote isn't a thing. I created a map below of the states that do and do not have voter competency laws, but if you want to read the data itself, it comes from the very website you linked to [1]. Also, the map was cut off a little bit, so the yellow should read "Conflicting laws regarding incompetency". This means that no, there is no effect on democracy because of guardianship; because guardianship of votes isn't a thing in most states in the US. My opponent concedes that democracy is a benefit so we can see that if we increased democracy to all (plants and humans alike), there would be a net benefit in the US. b. Minimum wages to plants.I ask: was slavery a net benefit on the economy because of the exploited labor? Of course it was a net benefit on the economy. Now, I ask my opponent: was slavery moral, with all of its free exploitation of millions of people? Of course it wasn't. So where is the line between economic benefits and humanitarian benefits? The line is between suffering and money; if there is millions, billions, trillions of beings suffering, then it is not a moral act - even when compared to the economic benefits that may be come of it. Slaughtering 5 billion people for a $2.3 billion increase in the economy isn't a moral act, so why would slaughtering trillions of plants for an increase in economic growth be moral?Humanitarian outweighs economic in almost all cases - and the only cases in which it doesn't is when there is a very small population and a very large economic increase (1 person to a $1 trillion increase), but with plants, we do not see the same occurance.c. Destroys agriculture and all of farmingMaybe, but the humanitarian impact outweighs this economic one. 2 million farmers versus billions of beings which necessarily have to be moral agents; the billions of beings win.As for your murder and rape argument; does a disabled person not have the right to life or the right to not be raped? They of course do; morality necessarily requires people (and Boxi says all living beings) to have rights like these, so while the farmers may not enjoy this, it is a necessary burden that they must have. It is bad for rapists that rape disabled people to have to come to the fact that they raped disabled people, but the impact of the rape outweighs the individual's ideas.2. NAPI really don't understand what my opponent is trying to get across within the text of the debate (admittedly, they did explain what they meant outside of the debate, but that isn't allowed to be considered by a judge). If the voter wishes to penalise me for this argument for being dropped because I don't understand it, so be it, but I think that this argument shouldn't be considered in the final vote because I just don't understand it or what its meaning is.[1]. http://www.bazelon.org...
Plants ought to have the right to vote

Resolved: Plants ought to have the right to vote. This resolution should focus on the United States. The Burden of Proof is split evenly. Definitions: plants - the group of organisms in the kingdom Plantae right - legal guarantee vote - a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice. ought - have a moral obligation to **Actually read the definitions. I've had two debates that had to end abruptly because my opponents simply do not understand that this is a debate about the ethics or impacts of botanical suffrage, NOT the feasibility. I know it's not feasible, don't argue that, that's not the point of the debate. Rules: 1. Follow structure 2. You accept to the round structure and resolution, terms, etc. as provided in R1. These cannot be changed. 3. No deconstruction semantics. plagiarism, trolling or forfeiture. Round structure: Round 1. Acceptance ("I accept" will do) Round 2. Constructive arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4. Defense
Abortion

It is unfortunate that my opponent has decided not to participate in a debate that he incited. Nevertheless, I thank him for bringing this sensitive topic up for discussion.I stand by my points that abortion is acceptable in rare circumstances, which include fatal birth disorders, the life of the mother, and rape. Most objections to abortion are religious in nature, and sometimes have little to do with logic. For example, what sense does it make to keep a woman who suffers brain death on life support in order to give birth to a child that will be stillborn, as in the case of Marlise Munoz? Moreover, hardcore pro-life advocates all too often only consider the well-being of the fetus, but not the life of the mother. How can pro-life advocates call themselves truly pro-life as in the case of Savita Halappanavar, where strict and non-sensical abortion legislation ultimately led to her unnecessary death? In closing, I would like to stress that I don't support abortion as a convenient escape from parental responsibility. But there are times that abortion is not only logical, but necessary and ethical.
Pacifism is a Naive Belief System

I thank Wrichcirw for the debate. I'm sure this is going to be one of the illuminating ones :) I believe Pacifism has been a field that has simply not been discussed well enough for people to consider it a viable alternative. I hope to address that in this debate, and as wrich said, I welcome questions and queries and possible scenarios (which I'm sure there would be). I'm going to focus a little more on America, since that is the demographic that would read the debate- and war industry IS pretty huge in America, not without support. During the aforementioned conversation, there was a huge focus on how things happened in history- and how they happened for the good. I'm not sure if we would go into that in the debate, but I might touch upon it if situation arises. The premise remains 'How it happened and how it has always happened doesn't imply it was the right way, or that there was no possible alternative'- although people (esp. elite class) would like you to believe that. There are basically two approaches to prove that Pacifism is indeed possible AND is more powerful than violence. The pragmatic approach that deals with how Pacifism is better than Violence- objectively, and there's the moral approach. In this debate, I'd go into the definition of power, and look at the debate from a pragmatic point of view rather than a moral point of view. The moral approach to this belief (for me, personally) comes from Gandhi- who got it from Hindu Vedas, although there's Bible that preaches Pacifism too, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the teachings of the Bible. I understand that morals would be subjective, hence it would not enough to convince anyone. I would also go into the blueprint of a non-violent attack, and about how to respond to different possible circumstances, possibly taking on the situations Pro discusses in his contention. Personally, I'd prefer if we make our cases in the next round, rebuttals in round 3 and conclusions in the last one- since both arguments and rebuttals in a single round curtail the clarity of the case. That's it. I await arguments by Pro :)
newbies need a debate.org tutorial

1. The hurry is that we don't know how long people will stay interested in the site. Get them while we still have their attention. Yeah, reading 5 to 10 debates take only 10 seconds, no sweat. 2. You completely ignored my idea and gave no reason your idea was better. Honestly reading 5-10 full debates is just as time consuming as a tutorial. My idea is the arrows show the pro/con buttons, help the newbie start a debate and shows the notifications tab. Voting won't be possible as it require verification. 3. Some people need acclimation to new surroundings and you want everyone to be perfect after one debate. I fail to see how you plan to accomplish such a powerful tutorial that people automatically know higher logic after taking it. Seriously. Instead just challenge serious people and stop debating newbies. Your fault for not taking the initiative. Even with the tutorial or reading debates you can't attain higher logic. What the tutorial can show is that you at least take the right side for arguing, therefore making debates more efficient. And knowing the pointers for starting a debate. 4. Wow, sorry to find out you want to put the minimum effort in. I'm tying this in with the final point. If Juggle will not put this tutorial in, then the only remaining option is to teach newbies individually. If you want to hide behind other people's work to build a tutorial that has no guarantee of working, then you should be the one to suffer for your own laziness. If you really care about the issue, do something about it, don't appeal to Juggle to fix it for you because they won't. This debate is about whether we need a tutorial or not, not whether Juggle will make a tutorial or not. Con doesn't seem to get that. "This debate has become an attempt to make Juggle recognize a need on this site, and not really a debate about the merits of a tutorial" This debate is about the reasons why there should have been a tutorial on this site. Who cares about Juggle? Con is deviating by using Juggle to justify his argument.