BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical

I am Pro-Choice for the most part, I am for it until the 28th week when they start to feel pain. (The nerve connections required begin to form [1]) I see abortion as preventing the would-be human from existing rather than murder. If we never came into existence we wouldn't bare a grudge, we'd have to exist for that. I don't count a fetus as humans until they begin to feel (As I stated before, I said pain because it is among the first emotions.)If you look at the Donohue-Levitt Hypothesis [2] you will find a correlation between abortion and crime. Why?If a baby is unwanted, it's parents aren't ready, (or parent, if it's the mother alone taking care of it) or the baby would push their current family into poverty, it wouldn't have the best childhood. It would have the potential to be happy, but in this kind of environment that becomes less likely.What about adoption?Adoption too, has it's share of flaws [3]. It isn't the same as growing in your original family. Some make it out happy and content, but there are already many children waiting in the adoption system. Every time another goes in, there is a higher chance that another makes it out alone.If a would-be mother aborts, she can actually create a career for herself and have a child later whenever she is prepared for it. This new child would grow up happier, with a real family surrounding it. She could have more children if she were to choose so and they would all be better off than the aborted child would be if it were to survive.And for your two scenarios about the mother's life in danger or the baby being a vegetable as a cause for an ethical abortion, I agree and would see this as good enough reason to go past the 28 week limit I initially established. 1. http://discovermagazine.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.adoptionsupport.org...
Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical

I am not completely pro-life. But I am more inclined for a woman to keep the child (yes I will call a fetus a child) till birth and send them to an adoption centre or such if they in no way cannot take care of him/her. The thing is not that abortion is completely wrong and should be illegal, but that maybe it should be limited. And I say maybe since of course most woman who want to have an abortion would just find other means. One of the reasons for my position is that the child or fetus is still human. Many pro-choice people always talk that the fetus is "just a bunch of tissue" and that "no one knows when life begins", but we do, it starts as that little blob in our mothers' wombs. And one MUST recognize that there are TWO lives not just one. So because there are two lives to consider women must be more aware of that child's right to live as well. That's why I believe that abortion could only be ethically right if the mother's life is in danger and if the child would end up living like a human vegetable for the rest of their lives. Other than that abortion is not ethical.
Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical

Abortion is terminating a unborn child's life during pregnancy. Now since there must be a consideration for the fetus's right to live as we all get to, abortion must be the last resort when women are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Now since you love to pull out the statistics I shall as well. On average numbers show that there are three arguements that are repeated by women who choose to abort the child. 3/4 saying that having the child would interfere with work, school, and such, another 3/4 say that they cannot afford the child, and 1/2 say that they do not want to be a single parent or they are having trouble with their husbands/partners. Mind you that even though these excuses sure do have their merit, it does not make abortion ethical. Not just because of the child's right to live that I had continously talked about before, but because there is something else that can be done about it. The fact is there are other choices to make, and again abortion should be the last of them. You clearly expressed your concern for the masses rather than the individual. So I will try to show you how if women keep their unwanted children and leave them up for adoption how much that would satisfy the nation's people. According to statistics, if more woman choose to keep the child then put it up for adoption it would satisfy a lot of infertile women looking for children. 30% of Americans have considered adopting a child. The survey conducted by the NSFG found that the percentage of married women who want to adopt rose from 26% in 1995 to 36% in 2002. Most of them often seeking children under tha age of 2 and healthy. Looking at a study done by statisticsbrain.com (using sources from the US Department of Health and Services) over 600,000 children under foster care were adopted that being 37% of adoptions done in the US. 56% of which was of no cost to the future parents. 86% of adoptions done by foster care were done with the adults wanting to give a permenant home to the child, 61% to expand the family. 81% of the relationships between the adoptee and his/her new parents were considered "very warm and close". And as you lightly discussed on the psychological effects adopted children go through. Actually only 9% of adopted children exhibited depression while the overwhelmingly majority (88%) have shown positive social behaviours. Clearly people would benifit from unwanted children. As they say, another man's poison is another man's meat. https://www.childwelfare.gov... http://www.statisticbrain.com... Of course this is an ethical debate as well so I've decided to use a normative ethical system that of which uses logic and reasoning to prove what is right and what is wrong. This system is called deontology. To figure if one action is ethical or the opposite one must make a categorical imperative. So if every women in the world who concieved a child had an abortion, does there lie a contridiction? Meaning is there then a point to abortion. Must point out that this is focusing on the action itself and not the consequence. I leave that to you to answer.
Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical

I know that many people in the adoption system DO end up okay, even happy, but what I was saying is each one that goes in may create another one that doesn't follow this trend. If every single person who got an abortion put their kids in the adoption system instead, the percentage that end up happy would be significantly less, even rare to find. Annually, there is a bit over a million babies aborted per year [1]. That is abortions in the U. S alone. 120,000 babies are adopted each year in the U. S. If every single baby conceived was born, what would happen to them? No home, and that many babies would take much resources to keep, which would come out of the people's pocket. Does that justify terminating an unborn child's life? The world isn't black and white, its grey. While there obviously are children who could have been born and would have had happy lives, the majority wouldn't. They could end up as criminals. I'm sorry about the lack of evidence the wikipedia article states, I just wanted you to understand the main part of the idea. The original claim that freakonomics had much more evidence supporting it. [3] I should have struggled to find a better source such as words from one of the men who actually came up with this hypothesis. As for the pain argument you present, of course animals can feel pain. The reason I use that as a point is that 'feeling' is one of the major characteristics that mark us as humans. Pain is among the first emotions to develop. If you'd like to argue on 'Feeling' as a fundamental part of human characteristics, feel free, but the aspect of thinking begins with these emotions. Thinking is what man uses to separate himself from 'animals. ' (Technically I know we are animals, but I refer to the connotative meaning of feral/ primal. ) I know how a baby develops, the stages of development and all that, (I've seen photos and never really been struck by them) but that doesn't change my stance on the topic. I don't value an individual's life above all, but rather mankind as a whole. I don't see the woman committing abortion as playing God, it's in her own body, not the universe. If you don't like the idea of people playing God, determining life and death, how are doctors beneficial, they help you live don't they? Finally, you keep mentioning the vegetable as a right for abortion, what changes the value of their lives? If you disagree with the idea of 'feeling' as a fundamental part of lives, are people who live as 'vegetables' equally important? If being a human is determined at conception, then these vegetables are entitled just as much right to live as you or me.1. . http://www.movementforabetteramerica.org...2. . http://www.aacap.org...3. . http://freakonomics.com...
About everything is illegal America has become A berserk authority freak nation

What I said in R1 is clearly incorrect as I have misinterpreted what my opponent says, and this debate clearly needs some definitions. I had misunderstood what my opponent meant by “laws”, I thought my opponent meant common laws such as murder, theft, etc. not laws from dumblaws. com Illegal – forbidden by law or statue [1] Laws – the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision [1] The truth is that America has become a crazy control freak nation where virtually everything we do is highly regulated. Last time I checked, I have never been arrested for playing dominoes on Sunday. These laws are never enforced, thus they cannot be considered true laws. A police officer will never arrest you for playing dominoes on Sunday. but the reality is that our liberties and freedoms are being strangled by all of this government oppression. This is incorrect. Real laws that are enforced by police are all for the protection of our freedoms and liberties. Are we going to allow theft and remove laws on theft as it removes our liberties? Of course not, these laws protect the citizens of the United States. The following are signs that America is becoming a control freak nation where almost everything is illegal. As I have already shown, nobody is arrested because of these laws and they are not enforced, thus they cannot be considered laws. C1: These laws are in place to protect us Laws preventing murder, theft, arson, and other harmful crimes are enforced and are for the protection of us. Would you rather murder be allowed because we have too many laws? All of these laws are important for the protection of the people of America. The government isn’t a control freak, merely interested in protecting its citizens. Is that wrong? Of course not. I have shown how America isn’t a control freak, thus the resolution is negated. Clearly, an easy vote is a VOTE CON. Sources: 1. www. dictionary. com
About everything is illegal America has become A berserk authority freak nation

Thanks for joining this debate. "berserk authority" i was tired when i wrote that title.Anyway,Do you think that you are free? Most Americans would still probably answer "yes" to that question, but is that really the case? In the film Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson stated that "everything is illegal in Massachusetts". Well, the same could pretty much be said for the United States as a whole. The truth is that America has become a crazy control freak nation where virtually everything that we do is highly regulated. You have probably broken multiple laws today that you don't even know exist. We have all become criminals and lawbreakers because almost everything is illegal at this point. Our politicians are convinced that they are "making life better" by piling gigantic mountains of laws on to our backs, and law enforcement authorities are convinced that they are helping society by "cracking down on crime", but the reality is that our liberties and our freedoms are being strangled by all of this government oppression. This is not the way that America is supposed to work. Yes, every society needs laws. But the laws should be short enough and simple enough that everybody can read them and understand them. In America today, there is no possible way that any of us could ever read all of the laws that apply to us. Most of us just live our daily lives and try to do the "right" thing. But there is no guarantee that men with guns will not show up at your door one evening because of some obscure regulation that you have broken.The following are signs that America is becomeing a control freak nation where almost everything is illegal.... One California town is actually considering making it illegal to smoke in your own backyard (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) In the United States it is illegal to sell natural cures for cancer - even if they work. (http://www.naturalnews.com...) In Alabama. Dominoes may not be played on Sunday. (http://www.dumblaws.com...) In many U.S. states is it now illegal to collect rain that falls from the sky on to your own property. (http://www.naturalnews.com...) In the United States it is illegal to operate a train that does not have an "F" painted on the front. Apparently without that "F" we all might not know where the front of the train is. (http://www.economist.com...) In Louisiana, a church was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a permit to do so. (http://radio.foxnews.com...) In the state of Alabama, bear wrestling is completely illegal. (http://www.dumblaws.com...) In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal to give alcoholic beverages to a moose. There is a federal law that makes it illegal to be "annoying" on the Internet. (http://news.cnet.com...) If you register with a false name on MySpace or Facebook you could potentially "spend five years in federal prison". (http://www.foxnews.com...) I have some more poitnts that i would like to bring up in round 3.Rebut me Con.
About everything is illegal America has become A berserk authority freak nation

This clearly doesn't need many definitions as it is very clear what my opponent means. We have a shared BOP, my opponent must prove the American government are control freaks and I have to prove that they aren't. However, my opponent must show how many laws deems control freak, are 20, 000 laws too many etc. etc. I look forward to my opponennts first arguments on why we shouldn't have as many laws.
There is only two gender (male and female)

I have no problem with the LGBT community but I know there are only two genders no matter what you say or do you will always be what you were born as and its okay not to accept that however physically you will be the same even after trans surgery your body internally will always remain male or female no matter what you say or do and its not something to be ashamed of just because you were born male or female its not stopping you from being who you want to be but you should realize that you are what you are and unless we can change the entire human body from the inside and out you simply will always be a male or a female. Being gay bi trans or anything else is a choice be it emotionally or pressure I can attest to this as someone in my family went through this however being male or female is not so much of a choice it is not something you can just change and call it a day, sure there are surgeries, sure you can do hormone therapy, but you will still always be a female or a male on the inside no matter what you "Choose" to do, and if you don't think there are genders at all and there should be no label just stop and think how society would be if nothing had a label, it would be utter chaos, its like walking into a supermarket and all you saw were unmarked boxes, you could be getting bleach thinking it was fruit juice, labels are just that they are labels and we need them to function as a society. I'm not saying that because you are born a female or male you shouldn't be who you want to be but you should realize that its not really within your power to simply change your entire chemistry you are a female or a male its not state of mind its your body and its how you were made. To wrap this up I have no intention of causing emotional pain to any of you who read this I understand what you are going through and everyone who reads this no matter if you agree or or disagree I will always value all of you :-)
There is only two gender (male and female)

Dear debaters, I believe that there are only 2 genders. The definition of gender on google is: "the state of being male or female" and dictionary.com defines gender as: "associated with natural distinctions of sex." and defines sex as: "either of the two main categories (male and female)" So off of dictionary.com and Google, both very reliable sources, say that there is only male or female. In addition, it is impossible to be transgender as you are born a certain gender and you can't do anything about it. It is all transparent and clear that there are only two genders which in all respect cannot be changed or modified in any way shape or form. In this debate, I would like to disclose that I am Christian and that will also take in a factor of my opinion. In addition, I have heard that definitions change, just like how laws change, however, I would like to point out the fact that gender is still defined the same and I hope would be defined the same way it currently is.
Should the voting age be lowered

1) I never argued that teenagers do not pay taxes at all. I argued they pay fewer taxes and they have less at stake in the political decisions made by government. Moreover, you pointed out that teenagers are allowed to drive, as a means of supporting your side of this debate. I believe that this was a rather poor example to choose, as young drivers are more likely to be involved in car accidents than their adult cohorts. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, "Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next)." [1] Moreover, they're less likely to recognize dangerous driving habits and situations. [1] Again, they clearly still need to undergo some mental maturation.2) Once again, the tide pod business was not my argument. It was a J-O-K-E.Sources:[1] https://www.cdc.gov...; Under "Risk factors" tab
Should the voting age be lowered

1) Teenagers are responsible enough to drive, have jobs, and therefore ALSO HAVE TO PAY TAXES, you would think if they had to pay taxes they should at least have some say in the government https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk... 2) Still more adults have done it so... Your argument is still invalid (it is just more teens youtubed it)(no I`m not sure if that is a word but it is now) https://twitter.com... And for the record i have been submitting VERY good evidence. (that is an opinion but still) Since this is the last round i would also like to say Thank you David for losing to me this was a very nice argument
Should the voting age be lowered

1) The specific section of the source I quotes does not say what you have said it does. The article points to research which demonstrates that the frontal lobe of a teenager aged 12 to 17 (not 8) is less developed than their adult counterparts. Researchers attribute the poor decision making and short termed thinking patterns of teenagers to this biological difference. It has nothing to do with peer pressure.2) First, the tide pods bit was a pithy, toss away line, not the crux of my rebuttal. Second, the article you provided to substantiate your claim discusses the risks posed to those who suffer from psychological impairments.At this point, I would point out that I am the only party here who has put forth an argument that is not highly speculative and that is actually substantiated by credible evidence. Thank you.As an addendum, here is some further reading on the Tide Pod Challenge phenomenon:https://tinyurl.com...
Should the voting age be lowered

1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said "If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one
Should the voting age be lowered

Rebuttals:1) Just because teenagers did not support the historic and monunmental election of God Emperor Donald J. Trump, that does not mean they do not make terrible choices. Moreover, by so many metics, teenagers make poorer decisions than adults. Teenage brains are still developing and, as a consequence, teenagers are more likely to do the following: seek excitement and engage in risk-taking behaviour make choices on impulse focus on short-term gains fail to anticipate consequences of their choices [1] Just last week they were eating tide pods for the love of Thatcher! We should demand more of our voters.2) Adolescents have far less at stake in the political system than adults. If the economy were to tank because of public mismanagement, it would not impact a teenage nearly as much as it would an adult who works fulltime to survive, owns a home, and has capital investments. Moreover, they pay few taxes and cannot be drafted.3) See point 1.Sources:[1] https://tinyurl.com...
Should the voting age be lowered

The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)
Socialism(pro) versus capitalism(con)

All his definitions look on point. Also this is my waive round, I intend to use number 4. For my form of capitalism, I choose community capitalism, which according to my source is "an approach to capitalism that places a priority on the well-being and sustainability of the entire community, not just the lucky few. " [1] I may add more definitions later, but right now I think for my opening round this sole def will be sufficient. Sources: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...