BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

My arguments could not be much more simple. A1: Neither republic is a UN member state [1]. This means neither of them have applied for sovereignty and therefore it is impossible for them to be sovereign states. A2: You stated that they are in the east of Ukraine [2]. A sovereign state by classification [1]. It is impossible for a sovereign state to be in another sovereign state (i. e. in land that is also part of another country) because that means it does not have borders that sovereign states must have by definition. I can not post an official one due to copyright issues that I'd rather not deal with. A3: You can not have a Donetsk oblast passport or a Luhansk oblast passport [3] Sources: [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] Your opening post [3] No sources prove that it is true
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Today's debate challenge from me to you focuses on the Ukraine crisis and specifcally one area. Are the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics in the east of Ukraine indepedent soverign nations? Or are they Russian puppet states in this conflict? Collectivley, these 2 nations govern themselves, have their own laws and citizens and flags. They call themselves as a confederacy: The Federal State of Novorossia (New Russia). Is it possible that they are in fact true soverign states? I believe the answer is YES. Debate me, if you dare :).Good luck to my oppponett, and may the best debater win!
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

I left sources 3 and 4 of my previous post in the comments. The Google translate source simply was too long. I would also like to point out it is Transnistria and Novorossiya - you spelt them wrong. Thanks once again for this great debate. R1: Transnistria is still a region with special legal status. correct or not. I rest my case that until a country is in someway recognised by a UN state. R2: The map you showed me depicts both as oblasts - and since the source is reasonably reliable you have basically just proved they are not sovereign states. R3: I am aware of that source, however it dates back to September the 11th, yet a proper sovereign state like south Sudan - despite being very poor [1] - easily developed a new currency. If they were that much of a sovereign state they would be able to create a currency. My sources were from March 2015, and they still don't have a currency. But their an oblast so they can't. Imagine Buckinghamshire, or in the US California, or the Rhine-Ruhr region of Germany suddenly having there own currency. They would have an identical problem to these two oblasts - their not sovereign states. I rest my case I would like to thank Kylar for this great debate and all the knowledge acquired. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1: https://www.gfmag.com...
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Thanks for the debate once again.I finalize my case with thisArgument I Transistria has its own flag, government, and way of running things. They should not be in the grip of Moldova for any reason, they are a nation.Argument IINovorossyia Map...I found one of the best I could find. Here is a better version. https://geovisualist.files.wordpress.com...You will note they are defined as east and west Ukraine but the same rule applies. The east, at least what was once the east is a fully soverign pair of states. Argument III http://www.themoscowtimes.com...you will see here they are developing their own currency I rest my casethanks for the debate
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Thank you for the debate so far. R1: Its Transnistria, another typo. Transnistria is recognised as a part of Moldova 'with special legal status' [1] [2] as supposed to a sovereign state. R2: Your map of Novorossiya was put together before the election, as it said 'holding referendums on the 11th may' in the future tense. It was only a map stating what might happen. A much more reliable source is national geographic whose map [3] shows Both as just oblasts - as they are. R3: South Sudan declared independence on the 9th of July - they introduced new currency on the 18th of the same month [4]. This was done by their finance minister, who neither of these oblasts have, or at least they don't have a proper one, but rather one that the monster raving loony party would call stupid, and not because they are not satirical. Over to you, remember I have the final say. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1. The document with the law about Transnistria in Moldovan (that is identical to Romanian) http://lex.justice.md... 2. The English translation https://translate.google.co.uk...
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Thank you for your courtesy and a great debate so far my friend. Refutal 1Yes, both republics run on multi currency zones. However they have become increasingly reliant on the ruble, and they will develop their own currency in time. Keep in mind they are barley 1 year old.Refutal 2The Nagorono Karbakah Republic spelling was my fault and I am sorry. Transitiria does exsist in truth, they have their own flag, governemt, etc. http://conservativehome.blogs.com...There is a map to prove this soverign state does exsist.The same rule of thumb applies to the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics.Here is a map for their national boundraieshttp://newstalk931.com...'I rest my case in Round IV.Thanks for the debate :)
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

R1: Both republics are multi-currency zones [1] [2] as they don't have the power to make there own - proving they're still a bit (more like a lot) of a Russian puppet state. they are suffering from the market itself, if they were THAT much of a sovereign state their own currency would exist, of course it has been proposed but both states seem to be too much of a puppet state to be able to. R2: It's spelt Nagorno-Karabakh and if you don't show me a source about this mysterious land called transitiria by my round 5 post I can't accept it's existence. Over to you pro _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources [1] http://www.kyivpost.com... [2] http://tass.ru...
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Again thank you for the debate :). It has been a good one thus far.I will now courteously refute your arguments.Argument IGovernment checkpoints? They have been taken over by the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics. They have established checkpoints and their borders are defined by their leaders. They do not need a national airline, and I don't know what TOC means (1)Argument 2Transitiria is a pro Russian state that declared indepedence from Moldova in 1992. They have lived as as a soverign state for 23 years in peace generally with Moldova. The same can be said for instance, for Somaliland. But more to the point...Nagorno Karbakah declared indepenence from Azerbajan in 1991, and the Soviet Union too."de facto states" like these are still soverign states.The same goes for the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics. Back to you, pro :), and thanks for the debate :).Sourcehttp://www.ft.com...
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

A1: There are still government checkpoints at both states, of course they will be a completely sovereign nation one day, but, the situation now is different. Neither have a national airline, TOC or road agency [1]. The borders still aren't official [2]. A2: Transitiria does not appear to exist [3] and Nagorno-Karabakh have only ever successfully claimed independence from the soviet union, not from Armenia or Azerbaijan [4]. It is only what they call independence. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1. http://www.luganskukraine.info... (website with a lot of information, it may backfire) 2. http://www.mapsofworld.com... 3. https://www.google.co.uk... 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Thank you so much for this debate :). I can't wait to get started. Now to refute your arguments.Argument I You say that nations must apply for recognition to be soverign states. And not only that, they have to apply for UN Membership to be recognized as a soverign state. I respectfully beg to differ on this with you. Kosov, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Vatican City State, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Taiwan yes are all recognized by at least 1 UN member state. However, someplace like Transitiria or Nagorono Karbakah is not, and yet they are fully independent, from their respective entity they were once with. These places have had their own government and flag and laws, etc for years, and they are thriving independently. Same with the states that have been recognized. These states haven't even applied for UN Membership, and they are still with or without recognition, independent states. You do not need UN recognition, UN membership applications, or recogntion from anyone to be a soverign state. This is the case with the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics.Argument III used the east of Ukraine as a reference to where these soverign states are, therefore, they have seceeded from Ukraine in what was once the east of that nation. They are now soverign states.Argument IIII refute your argument that you can't be given a passport to these soverign states.http://russia-insider.com...Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://russia-insider.com...
Do we have a moral obligation to recognize a sentient AI as deserving of basic human rights

How do we make sure it is a robot? How do we make sure it is self aware? Well, those were your premises, sentient AI. I'm not concerned with trying to prove the premises are valid here, only with what we should do once we ascertain they are.Does self awareness also imply emotion, empathy and a sense of moral right and wrong?No... But are those really required to grant someone rights? I'd argue not. Human psychopaths have no empathy, a very limited range of emotions and only care about right and wrong in a pragmatic sense. Humans with severe cognitive impairment have no sense of moral right and wrong. Those groups still have rights.Now let's say it has all these things, is it even still a robot?I'd say that's a philosophical question, not a practical one. ;-) And from a practical perspective on the subject of granting rights... does it really matter what it is? I'd argue not.The question of whether it is a man or a toaster aside if we were in competition for resources we might cause self harm by trying to afford it rights. I have to agree with that. If there's indeed a competition for resources, and if one argues human species survival should trump justice and fairness, then we should not afford it rights. It doesn't make it morally right, though.
Do we have a moral obligation to recognize a sentient AI as deserving of basic human rights

I own a dog she seems happy enough with the arrangement but that is besides the point. So back to the bots what if an alien robots should be dropped from the sky? I have a number of questions about this supposed robot. How do we make sure it is a robot? How do we make sure it is self aware? Does self awareness also imply emotion, empathy and a sense of moral right and wrong? Now let's say it has all these things, is it even still a robot? The question of whether it is a man or a toaster aside if we were in competition for resources we might cause self harm by trying to afford it rights. And on that note I give you the last word
Do we have a moral obligation to recognize a sentient AI as deserving of basic human rights

But that's exactly the point. From a moral perspective, I don't think we can justify owning animals, either. Especially animals that everyone knows for a fact are self-aware and have interests, like dogs, cows and pigs.So, so that we're clear, what are, for you, the very basic requirements for an individual to be entitled rights? Because if being a member of the human species is a basic requirement for you, there's no point in arguing here, I guess... =)But back to the robots, since you were not impressed with my "child" bots (how dare you!), let me propose a different scenario.... What if it were a self-aware alien robot that just dropped on Earth? No "makers" in sight. Should we grant that robot rights, then?
Do we have a moral obligation to recognize a sentient AI as deserving of basic human rights

Oh that's good. That is rich. Robot children you say and yet they spring forth, so to speak, as fully grown fully functional and presumably fully programmed. They wouldn't be "baby" robots except by the most loose interpretation of the word. Also if I may quibble if we set this process in motion than are we still, to quote the bard, their parents and original? That is to say that when we breed a dog or a horse who do the offspring belong to? That's right the breeder. You also mentioned pain and while you didn't expressly say that the robots in your argument are capable of feeling physical pain I would remind you that contemporary robots do not and so would have to be designed to. Designing robots to feel pain... now that would be cruel.
Do we have a moral obligation to recognize a sentient AI as deserving of basic human rights

Sorry, no empathy for circuit boards, haha. But I can (maybe) try to argue that from a logical perspective.So let's work on our definitions first. Let us reflect for a moment on why do we have "rights" at all. Rights were created to protect someone's interests. To accord "rights", we must first have a "someone" (a self-aware entity) and that someone must have "interests", such as an interest in continuing to exist, or an interest in not feeling pain. Now what is AI? AI is an "intelligence" that was man-made. If we ever manage to make intelligent, self-aware robots, i.e. sentient robots (unlikely at this point, I think, but let's use our imagination for a moment), we might assume that, at some point, such entities may come to have interests to protect.Now, one might argue we would not be obligated to give such entities rights because, in spite of being sentient and having interests, they have one fundamental difference from the other sentient beings we currently know (humans and non-human animals) - robots are man-made, they don't exist independently from man. So let us take this up a notch and imagine those intelligent, sentient robots are also self-replicating. Now we have "child" robots being created independently, without any sort of human interference at all. Now, how do you justify not giving such independent, sentient beings rights? What would make then morally different from your average human?
There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

I shall now begin with my points At the root level, aborting a baby is taking away a chance at a life, a friend to others, the potential for growing other people who the baby would have met over the course of its life. In general, people will usually have a positive impact on the people they meet, whether it is because of constructive criticism, a friendship, or even being antagonistic, because then someone can learn to deal with such people, who will be met often no matter where they go. People can have negative impacts on other people, and most do at some point, but as a social species we are far more often positively impacted when meeting new people than negatively impacted. Therefore, a potential life being thrown away and the positive impacts that that life would have on other people will often outweigh a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, especially since she will also be impacted by such a baby. However, there are times in which the birth of a child will cause suffering rather than happiness and building of people. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then the woman will have a hard time looking at her child, knowing that that is the child of someone who hated her. The child will grow up with an unprepared mother, no father, and knowing that they were not only a mistake, but completely unwillingly created. Both mother and child will likely lead terrible lives after that event. I am not just throwing my thoughts around, there have been studies shown that prove that a child with only one parent will not usually be as happy as a child with two. Logically flowing from that are the points I made. Those are two circumstances that I believe are different morally in that in one it would be fine to abort the baby, and in the other it would not be fine.
There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

I look forward to a lively debate. As per the rules, I will make one clarification of position here in the form of a definition of Abortion. Abortion: An operation or other procedure (including ingestion of abortifacient pills such as RU-486) conducted with the primary intention being the death of the zygote, embryo or fetus. As further clarification on this definition in the form of an example. Undergoing chemotherapy while pregnant. The purpose of chemotherapy is not to kill the child, but rather to save the life of the mother. Thus the death of the child in this case would not be classified as an abortion. This concludes the my opening round and I pass the debate back to Pro to provide the opening arguments.
There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

I should clarify my position because the title isn't long enough to accurately describe it. I am arguing that there are certain times when abortion is wrong and should not be done, and there are times that it is acceptable. Con will try to prove that it is either always acceptable or always wrong. Rules: - Obviously, there will be no attacks on people and no anger. We are debating, not having an online shouting match (as happened between some idiots in my third period today but in person). - Any form of argument may be used, however I would discourage con from using a solely religious argument because that has absolutely no effect on some people, however I may still consider them if they feel they must use them. - Burden of proof is shared - First round is acceptance, clarification of position, and whatever else con feels necessary but no arguments to make sure that we both have 3 argument rounds. - If Con has a problem with any rule it will be resolved in the comments section so that we don't wast the debate arguing about rules - Any accusations of a logical fallacy must be supported - Follow basic rules of debating politeness Happy debating! :)
euthanasia

hi there, i just want you to know first off that i respect your opinion and it matters to me. lets just investigate the factors that contribute to the thoughts of euthanasia, it may be the fact that you are terminally ill, or perhaps it is the fact that you are living a life that is full of misery or perhaps you may have comitted someting you are shameful of and you know that you will never get over it. Now if you were in this position, would you want to live your life in despair or pain, i should hope not, and if you do, well that is your opinion. i personally think the act of removing euthanasia from society is like declining many of their basic human rights, sure, it will more than likely effect other people but that is besides the point, i like to think that my life is in my hands and no one else can determine what i can do with it. I also feel that the phrase "dont let anyone tell you who you are or what you are going to be" relates to this and i would also suppose that you agree with that phrase? what im trying to say is that everyone has rights and this is depriving one of them very rights that we are allowed
the bible may not be against homosexuality

No: since homosexuality provides an evolutionary advantage, propogation is supported. There is no evidence homosexuality undermines any particular notion of family, rather it supports and enhances the notion of pair bonding. David 'exceeds' in Jonathan arms, 1 Sam 20: 41. Ruth 1: 14 cleves (u-dbq)to Naiome same word as in Genesis 2: 24. Daniel 1: 9 the phrase 'chesed v'rachamim' is translated in the KJV as 'favour and tender love'. Chesed actually translates as "mercy". V'rachamim is plural emphasizing it, and means either "mercy" or "physical love". It is unreasonable that it reads 'mercy and mercy.' So 'mercy and physical love' is the viable translation. Romans, the suffix 'ken' given to 'Physis' gives ownership of the nature to the actors, it is not universal nature. 'Their natural using' is the actual phrase, though given the fluid meaning of 'physis', 'their customary using', is just as legitimate a translation. Whatever the site claims, if it doesn't provide an example from ancient history, say within 1000 years of when Saulus the liar was using the term, then it doesn't address the argument put to you. Please identify what you imagine is circular reasoning.
the bible may not be against homosexuality

Homosexuality is obviously condemned in the Bible. It doesn't coincide God's created order when He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out His command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that order. Also, homosexuality undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. I can't find anything on what you said about Jonathon and David, Naomi and Ruth, or Daniel and Ashphenaz having a homosexual relationship therefor the bible does not condone homosexuality. But it is against it. Natural function is the word that "natural using" means therefore what is against natural using is against what God who created nature to be which is to be split by male and female. The species you say can change sex weren't created that way in the beginning by God in the same way homosexuality wasn't created in the beginning by God as the bible makes clear. https://www.tms.edu... here is a site that both condemns and condones the use of the word ARSENOKOITAI meaning homosexual. It is the readers choice ultimately. I stand by my belief that homosexuality is against what God created in the bible therefore the bible is against homosexuality. I want to here more about the characters you say committed acts of homosexuality in the bible. Since circular reasoning isn't getting us anywhere lets talk about if the bible condones homosexuality.