BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should abolish capital punishment

This debate is for the Winter Tournament, hosted by TheProphett, and is between Hayd and myself. I thank Proph for hosting the tournament, and thank Hayd for what will be, I have no doubts, an outstanding debate! We've come to an agreement on a topic after taking ages, but at least we got there. The full resolution is as follows: The United States should abolish all capital punishment used by the state and federal governments. I'll provide the necessary definitions this round. United States: The United States refers to both federal and state governments; what Pro should advocate for is the federal government enacting a ban of capital punishment at both federal and state levels, i.e. the Pro position must advocate for complete abolition of any legal death penalty in the status quo of the United States. To clarify, this involves the legislature passing the bill and the President signing it. Should: I'm just going to take whiteflame's definition of this - "This simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from 'could,' as what we are discussing is whether abolition should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases." Abolish: To abolish is to formally put an end to something. Capital punishment: Capital punishment, also known as "the death penalty," is punishment by death. To clarify, it means a judicial body, as is in the system of the United States, agreeing to pass a sentence to a convicted criminal accused of a certain crime, and that sentence being execution. In other words, capital punishment is "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Currently, it is present in 31 states and the federal civilian and military legal systems. If my opponent has any disagreement with any of these definitions, they should be expressed in a message or in the comments section, and the definitions altered to make them more amenable. Pro should present their arguments in Round 1 and leave the last round blank (except to post "no round as agreed"); we each have 3 total rounds of argumentation. No new arguments in the last round of argumentation (which is Round 3 for Pro and Round 4 for Con). Any arguments given in this round should be disregarded by all voters. This debate follows the new "opt-in" voting standards system, expanded on here. [http://www.debate.org...] On acceptance, the Contender consents to these standards, as do I. By voting on this debate, you agree to meet these requirements for your RFDs. Finally, the rules, definitions, structure and standards specified in the R1 set-up cannot be challenged, and are considered final upon acceptance. I hope for a good debate!
Due to "race mixing"(misegenation), every person on the planet will have the same color skin

You mentioned the example of the United States. The vast majority of the United States (the white population) is already one race. For the sake of clarity, I mean 'of European descent' when I use the word 'white'. Although 'white' in general is considered a race, there are genetic differences within the white race, such as Swedish people have blond hair, French people have distinctive facial characteristics, i.e.. In America, you can't really see these distinctions. The mixing of the sub-divisions of the white race has resulted in a population such that you usually can't point to a white person and say. "Oh, he's of complete Austrian descent." Although there are still genetic differences within the white population, they are still considered one race. A light-skinned person with black hair and a light-skinned person with red hair are still of the same race. That is because the primary factor used to define race is skin color. Skin color happens to be a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by many genes. Therefore, the offspring of one "black" parent and one "white" parent would have a skin color that would be somewhere in between the skin tones of the parents. As this process continues to happen, with multiracial people having children with other multiracial people, all people would eventually have a very similar genetic makeup, with small amounts of genes from each of the 'original races'. Of course, there would still be variations, but people would be similar enough to each other to be considered one race. Now, I have argued earlier that 'interracial affairs' as you call them are on the rise. It does not matter that they still make up the minority of marriages because the topic of debate is whether or not deracialization (the elimination of the concept of 'races' due to the intermixing of races, basically the same concept as becoming a society of multiracial people) will occur in the future. Since rates of interaccial marriages are rising, they will eventually make up the majority of marriages. By this point, the vast majority of the Earth's population will be one 'race' as genetic factors will have mixed. However, I hypothesize that there will be isolated fringe areas that will still have homogenous groups consisting of people of one of the 'original races'. For example, the people of Easter Island may decide not to intermix with any outsiders. Eventually, however, these groups will assimilate and intermarry, and share their genes with the worldwide race. Therefore, the topic statement is true.
Due to "race mixing"(misegenation), every person on the planet will have the same color skin

You believe but don't know for sure. How can you say one way or the other for that matter? We can speculate with statistics that don't bring absolute confirmation on a subject . We can look at history and arrive at conclusions about the future. Which arises the first question, has it not been all this so called race mixing for perhaps thousands of years to a result of what there is today? What is the result? Taking a look at residents and dwellers in the land called the United States today, there are many that are not considered what's referred to as pure blood or a native individual. Whether the case is that the person is part this and part that or even tracing back their lineage to examine the blood line. With all that , the person is still regarded according to a uniform appearance that he or she is a member of a so called race. As we continue to study genealogy, it's learned that DNA is independent in function . Regardless of whom you mate with , engage coital/copulation with, that's not the main or final determinant of physical characteristics to the descendants . The progenitors carry in the blood line , this particular gene from ancestor x and this one from ancestor xx. Which is the usual explanation to cases with "black" parents having a "white" child , vice versa and all the mixtures in between . Next occurrence is that society will already deem that offspring as one classification or another based on the physical vs DNA. That's where this race system really becomes incongruent. Digressing from that point , there are those that we say homogenously mingle and multiply . Numerous individuals that continue generation after generation , that reproduce with ones in the same people group. Families that begat families that go on and so forth. As much as there are numbers climbing high for so called interracial affairs, the majority still outweighs the opposite . So one day it will all be one race. Aren't we all one race now ? What is meant by rural fringe groups? What about urban or metropolitan factors ? What is deracialization? How do you go from that to multiracial? With all that mentioned, do you still believe the topic statement to be true ?
Due to "race mixing"(misegenation), every person on the planet will have the same color skin

I do believe that, at some point in the future (this may be near or far, though I believe the latter is far more likely), that the races of the world will mix together to form one race. This may occur several hundred, or even a thousand, years from now due to rural fringe groups that will continue to procreate homogeneously, but it will happen eventually. Consider it -- every day the world becomes more globalized, and people of different racial backgrounds are being mixed together. According to the 2010 Pew Research Center Report, 15.1% of new marriages were between two people of different ethnicity or race, compared to only 8.4% of existing marriages. In general, studies such as these have been showing that interracial marriage rates are on the rise around the world. Furthermore, racial intermingling has already been taking place in South American countries, such as Brazil and Argentina to name a few. For example, a growing amount of Brazilians, currently about 43% of the Brazilian population, identifies as 'Pardo'. 'Pardo' originally referred to the mixture of Whites who came from Europe during the colonial era, Black slaves that were taken from Africa, and indigenous populations, but now also refers to mixed-race people in general. The Pardos are an excellent example of the deracialization that has already happened and is continuing to happen. In the coming times the world will continue to see more and more multiracial children, until eventually, the people of Earth will assimilate into one race.
Due to "race mixing"(misegenation), every person on the planet will have the same color skin

Due to "race mixing"(misegenation), every person on the planet will have the same color skin. Is that a true or false statement? Will the people of multi-color that are today be the mono-color so to speak of tomorrow? Bring your thoughts, views , ideas and explanations. I take the side that it's an unsubstantiated claim . Furthermore what value does it have to make such a claim? How long has intermingling of people groups been to show its true result in the physical light ? Will one racial classification or more cease to exist? Will there be brand new racial subclasses? Come bring your insight on this matter and we shall both be awarded edification.
Right and Wrong, When Pertaining to Morality, are Subjective to Personal Interpretation.

Sorry I forgot I was in this debate.I hate to explain this to you, but the laws of nature described by physics are in no way analogous or synonymous with the concept of morals.You misunderstand. Morals proposed by man are descriptions of an objective moral law. Invalidating your argument that differenrt cultures proves morallity is subjective.it simply states that one can have no moral viewpoint of a subject, action, topic, etc. It's still a moral issue in general whether or not some people don't have a moral viewpoint of the issue.Right and wrong are about facts. A subjectivist believes killing is not right nor wrong otherwise you'd be a moral realist. People can have differnrt opinions but you say objectivly morallity is amoral. There is no moral.Could you elaborate on this?Its simple amoral is without morals. If "Moral" is meaningless then without morals is meaningless.you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that "moral facts exist."Everything said follows. Saying "Neither Y or X is B" is saying Y and X are not B. If B's meaning has basis in accpeting X or Y is B or not B then B is meaningless. By the very definition of morality one can see that it is subjectiveMorality is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. http://dictionary.reference.com... Where the rules come from isnt within the definition. Mchitler doesnt say why we need to accept the definition that assumes subjectivism His argument is circular.Thank you!
Right and Wrong, When Pertaining to Morality, are Subjective to Personal Interpretation.

I hate to explain this to you, but the laws of nature described by physics are in no way analogous or synonymous with the concept of morals. McHitler can say "killing people for no reason is right" or "killing people for no reason is wrong" as well as having no opinion on the issue either way. This does not disprove subjective morality, it simply states that one can have no moral viewpoint of a subject, action, topic, etc. It's still a moral issue in general whether or not some people don't have a moral viewpoint of the issue. Also.... one of your last statements seems a tad bit...incoherent. "Amoral rely on the meaningfulness of the moral if there is no moral category the opposing position is meaningless." Could you elaborate on this? As for everything else, you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that "moral facts exist." Through this claim it seems you have taken on a burden of proof yourself, which is unfortunate. As for my burden, I will elaborate. Morality, by definition, is a system of values and ideals that exist within individuals or groups. By the very definition of morality one can see that it is subjective due to the language pertaining to individuals and groups. I will await your response, preferably with some refutation or attempts at such towards my examples given in the beginning of this debate.
Right and Wrong, When Pertaining to Morality, are Subjective to Personal Interpretation.

How does that prove subjectivity? Man still has his own will in objective morality he can make up morals, but that doesn't refute objective morals. A subject like physics has objective truths and a man can come around and say doing physics this way is correct. He is wrong physics isnt subjective. Subjectivism is not coherent. Ethical words and ethical problems have meaning.This follows moral realism is true. Examine the phrase "Killing people for no reason is right" and "Killing people for no reason is wrong" Mchitler (funny name :D) cant say one is correct over the other. Mchitler believes "Killing people for no reason is neither wrong or right" This position removes meaning from ethics. saying its not wrong or right is saying its not a moral issue. All is amoral. Amoral and moral are categories that we put statements in. Amoral rely on the meaningfulness of the moral if there is no moral category the opposing position is meaningless. It is common sense that killing people is a moral issue. Therefore, moral issues have meaning and moral facts exist.
Right and Wrong, When Pertaining to Morality, are Subjective to Personal Interpretation.

In this debate, I shall take the burden of proof. I propose that morality, our understandings of right and wrong, are subjective to external and neurological factors. One instance of this is the separation of moralities in different cultures. People in India tend to view the cow as a sacred animal, and because of this, killing or harming a cow is immoral to those people. In other countries such as the U.S., cows are frequently used as livestock with little regard to them as an organism and a more prominent view of them as foodstuff. The fact that people possess different opinions on what is moral proves in itself that morality is subjective to other factors as is not cemented into people by a deity or other means.
Abortion

Many thanks for my opponent's last response. Dropped Points: My opponent has refuted none of my points about consciousness from last round. Then, she dismisses all of my arguments from my first round by saying they talk about how the conceptus is somewhat alive, which is false. In these, I talk about how the conceptus is fully alive and a person. Therefore, I extend my arguments. Opponent's Case: My opponent starts out by going through what happens after conception occurs. Seeing as this is just a stage in the development of the conceptus, it is irrelevant to the question of whether the conceptus is a life or not. Next, she says after the first week, the pregnancy is detectable. Since people being aware of your existence does not change the value of your life, this is irrelevant. Then, she states that many zygotes never make it past the first week after conception. But, just because there is a high death rate, like in the third world, it doesn't make the child of any less moral value. After, she states that the conceptus at this stage has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness. This is false. They do have a capacity for self awareness, a quality essential for personhood. For, when this part in their life is complete, they will be able to be self-aware, like a comatose person. This argument fails. My opponent then claims that a conceptus needs to be viable in order to be human. However, this is not relevant to an unborn's personhood, for it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in their state of being. After, my opponent calls a conceptus a potential person, which my arguments in round 1 showed is false. She goes on to claim that a child is not a person until it is no longer a part of the mother. It was never part of the mother to begin with (The mom doesn't have 2 brains or 20 toes); thus, this argument fails. My opponent has failed to even touch my case and her points don't stand up to scrutiny.
Abortion

I would first like to apologize to my opponent for the lack of argument against his first 5 points. As I went back to check them, I realized that they were all mostly about the conceptus and how they are somewhat alive. Well, at conception, the life form is called a zygote and it begins its journey by dividing into two identical cells, called blastomeres. They continue to subdivide once every twelve to twenty hours. When it reaches sixteen cells it becomes known as a morula, which usually occurs after three days gestation. A couple of days later a cavity appears in its center and it is now called a blastocyst, which contain an inner group of cells that will eventually become the fetus and an outer group that will form the placenta. At about twelve days or so after conception, the blastocyst starts to produce hormones that are detectable in urine. It is at this point where most physicians define the start of pregnancy. A vast majority of zygotes never make it this far. In fact, even at two months along, the embryo does not appear to be fully human. It has a reptilian brain and has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness. It is not yet sentient and is not defined as a fetus until the tenth week. Actually, over ninety percent of abortions are performed before the fetus reaches 13 weeks. So, to say that the termination of a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo or a fetus is a human being before viability, with a right to life, is scientifically unfounded and rightfully illegal. There is a huge difference between something being potentially human and an actual living, breathing human being. Even a fetus that is prematurely born or removed from a sick or dying mother is not a human being until it is actually apart from the mother. Due to the lack of characters, I am forced to stop now. I thank my opponent for his time and arguments and wish him the best of luck. Sources A) I guess this: https://theshalomcenter.org... B) My own knowledge.
Abortion

Many thanks for my opponent's timely response.Dropped Points:My opponent has dropped many arguments as to why the conceptus is a life (All of my points in my second section from last round). Thus, I shall extend my arguments from that round. The Brain and Personhood:My opponent starts by saying that dormant or active consciousness is essential to personhood. However, a conceptus has dormant consciousness, like a person who is asleep or comatose. Thus, her reasoning actually supports my claims. She then goes on to say that persons need to have a history of consciousness/sentience, in order to be a person. Firstly, consider the treatment of comatose patients. We would not discriminate against one for rarely or never having been sentient in the past while another patient had been sentient. In such cases, potential counts for everything. Secondly, since one does not have to experience harm in order to be harmed, it seems more consistent with our moral sensibilities to say that what makes it wrong to kill the reversibly comatose, the momentarily unconscious, and the conceptus is that they all possess the natural inherent capacity to perform personal acts. And what makes it morally right to kill plants and to pull the plug on the brain dead, who had history of sentience, is that their deaths cannot deprive them of their natural inherent capacity to function as persons, since they do not possess such a capacity. Therefore, history of sentience is irrelevant. My opponent then proceeds to state that higher brain function is essential to personhood. However, the conceptus yet to reach the stage in his (or her) development at which brain waves can be detected, unlike the brain dead individual, possesses the inherent capacity to have brain waves. He/she is like a patient with a temporarily flat EEG. Therefore, this also argument also fails. My opponent has not addressed one of my arguments from my first round, and all of her arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. My case still stands.
Abortion

He says that abortion is murder, something I can prove otherwise. Why do pro-lifers think that embryos become precious immediately after conception? Does a switch get turned on that instantly makes the fertilized egg precious? What makes a person inherently precious, I think, is (dormant or active) consciousness: thoughts, feelings, memories, hopes, and awareness. Since consciousness depends on the development of the nervous system, and since it takes many months for the nervous system to mature, we can conclude that consciousness emerges gradually. Consequently, the inherent preciousness emerges gradually too. Granted, a sleeping or comatose person has no consciousness either. But a sleeping or comatose person's consciousness is dormant: if they wake up, they have memories, etc. For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness (unless you believe in reincarnation). Even though all the DNA is there, the fact that there's no higher brain activity strongly suggests that there's no consciousness. Nor does the later presence of a heartbeat and of primitive neural activity imply consciousness or preciousness. What's needed is higher brain activity and the consequent self-awareness. Now, I grant that nobody knows for sure what consciousness is -- philosophers have been speculating about the nature of consciousness for years, and scientists haven't yet tackled the issue. But it is quite clear that consciousness does not emerge full-grown immediately after conception. And since I believe in science, I have to presume that consciousness emerges with the gradual development of the nervous system. Since I made the character limit 2,000, I will have to continue in later arguments. Best of luck to my opponent. Sources: A) dbcuuc. org/sermons/001001. htm B) . http://capitalismmagazine.com...