BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

When you said that it is self evident that we have a moral duty to assure that others arrive at the truth, I disagree. That the equivalent of saying that it just is, without any evidence, so I'm not going to refute it any further. You also say that it is beneficial to society to seek the truth. But how is it beneficial? perhaps that society will have greater technologies, and lead more comfortable lives, but that seems like a very narrow view of beneficial. society that is grounded in religion, even if it inhibits technological advancement to some degree, will still inspire personal emotional happiness much more then one grounded in atheism. So if a person considers their mental comfort more important then their physical, then they should consider religion more beneficial to society then atheism. Your third point, that a person that holds religion would not like to be patronized in that way, is nothing but an opinion. Personally, I would much rather be under the impression that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in me and I will live forever then believe life is all but meaningless, so I feel I have a moral duty to ensure that others don't break away from religion. Your fourth argument, that most religions must be false, has nothing to do with the argument. It is about the morality of following religion, not the truthfulness of it. Now, on to the idea of religion encouraging immoral ideals. Although the bible does instruct people to hold many ideas that are today considering generally to be immoral, it at the same time encourages morality. It supports a person to be kind to their fellow man, to do things like donate and be compassionate. While there are people who act upon these ideas, the majority of religious people generally adopt a more realistic and modern view on prejudices, at least to the degree where the majority of religious persons don't go around murdering homosexuals. At the same time, a majority of these people still observe the positive ideals, like donating to the poor. So while religion may have some people form immoral opinions, and some may act on these, the overall morality that religion encourages is greater the immorality. also, your refutation to my crashing planes metaphor is incorrect in one important way. Even if we where morally obligated to inform people that the airline is lying, there is still a fundamental difference between airline and death. We don't get to decide not to die, the way we can decide to not ride an airline. We might be morally obligated to inform people the truth about planes so they can chose to not fly, but if you where to inform people the 'truth' about death, they couldn't make the informed decision to not die, they would just be more terrified of it happening.
trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

I believe it's immoral to try and 'convert' religious persons to atheism, or in any other way convince them to disbelieve their religion, because religion is a means for a person to live their lives in happiness. Religion allows a person to be satisfied that in both life and death, they serve a purpose. The satisfaction that one can derive from religion is unique, because regardless of what an atheist person does or thinks during their lives, they will never be able to believe that they will continue to live after their death. If a person has a deep held fear of serving a purposeless existence, or of the concept of a 'permanent' death, then who are you to try and deny them a source of relief for these fears? Say someone had a phobia of, for example, planes, and they constantly told themselves that the plane can't crash, and if it did, they would probably survive, to the point where they believe it themselves. It would be cruel and pointless for you to approach that person and lay out to them that the plane could in fact crash, and statistically they would most likely die. It is a similar circumstance with religion, except on a much larger scale, because people base their entire lives on that idea. So trying to deny somebody there religion is not only a pointless argument, but it is an attempt at destroying many peoples lives.
The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System

Position: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All SystemArgument 1: Countries with universal healthcare have the highest iHDI (inequality-adjusted human development index). Obamacare is not a universal healthcare system. It is a system that discounts health insurance for people who get their health insurance through the exchanges.According to the UN[1], the top 10 countries by iHDI are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, and Ireland. All 10 of those countries have universal healthcare systems.[2]Argument 2: Countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita on healthcareAccording to the WHO and the OECD, the US spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on healthcare.The US spends roughly $8,250 USD per capita on healthcare every year. The next highest OECD country is Norway, at roughly $5,700 USD per capita on healthcare every year. That's more than $2,500 less per capita than the US, and it's the next highest spender on healthcare. As a further example, France, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, the UK, Finland, Iceland, Japan, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Taiwan, and many other countries all spend less than half per capita on healthcare than the US, and all have universal healthcare.[3][4]Argument 3: Despite spending less per capita on healthcare, countries with universal healthcare have higher life expectanciesIn a comparison between several OECD countries (including Australia, Norway, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, and the UK), the US came dead last in life expectancy, while spending the most per capita.[3] Here is a visualization of the data:https://cdn.mediacru.sh...Sources:[1] http://hdr.undp.org...[2] http://www.pacifichealthsummit.org...[3] http://www.scribd.com...[4] http://www.who.int...
Chris Sale will win the AL Cy Young Award over Blake Snell

Blake Snell and Chris Sale are widely seen as the 2 most likely choices for the American League (AL) Cy Young Award. Both pitchers have put up impressive stats for the entirety of the 2018 baseball season, And both have received praise and endorsement from the media to win the award. First off, Please be respectful in this debate, And the second main rule is that both debaters can only use stats up to September 18th. Any future starts or innings thrown by either pitchers after that date may not be taken into account.
End is more important than means.

oh sorry, I believe that the ends are not more the means, and if we look into the history books we can find perfect example when we look at Hitler and the Nazi regime. When Adolf Hitler first came into power in 1935 Germany was suffering massive inflation, to which Hitler eventually put an end to, but to achieve the end result he did truly terrible things such as the persecution of the Jewish living in Germany. The anti sentiment grew and enveloped Germany and was followed up by the Holocaust. The economic recovery of Germany was Hitler's End Means bu the way in which he achieved it (war and murder) hardly justify it.
Tupac is the greatest rapper of all time

He is not top tier in any of them with the exception of socially conscious/content (even though his content was so hypocritical and often contradicted himself) , and delivery (which he is not the best at).If you were talking about Ice-T, Troubleneck Brothers, Sister Souljah (to an extent), I would agree. Tupac, on the other hand lived the life. He never denied that he did things about crime. But he also had a lot of emotional pain that he had in him from lack of a father figure, which caused a vicious cycle that drove him to crime. He acknowledges that crime ain't good, and also his song called "Trapped" pretty much sums up everything about Tupac, about his vicious cycle he's trapped. "Sometime 2 die 4", a skit, further talks about it. It's not like Tupac takes pleasure in his acts.DeliveryA lot of the rappers you mentioned are very desperate sounding at times. And you can add Tim Dog. Tupac's was rather natural in every single song he did. As to what you said about Biggie it's close, but Tupac still was superior. That's why his music was more popular than say Biggie Smalls. Tupac's music was more mainstream.Quotables/punchlinesPlenty -- "If my homies call""Brenda Got a Baby""Holla if ya hear me""I get around""Dear mama""If my homies call""F$$k the world" Ability to Battle/battle barsThat doesn't mean anything. No battle rapper has ever been considered top nier in rap.OriginalityHe is quite original. He was not cliche at the time of his debut. He rapped about misery, pain, and didn't delve into the feel-good aspects of most hip hop at the time, such as gangsta rap and rapping about beating people. HE was quite poetic. And consistent in his belief."Brenda Got a Baby" is one, and Tupac intelligently talks about the problems in the projects. "Trapped" is another great song. "Violent" is a good piece of political music. In terms of being cliche, Ice-T, Troubleneck Bros., Jungle Bros., E-Bros., Sister Soulja, all rap about the same whiny stuff in comparison.http://thoughtcatalog.com...http://www.antiessays.com...http://www.sputnikmusic.com...;
Women should be treated equally to men.

Hey fellow debaters. I am searching for an opponent to take the Con side that Women should be treated equal to Men. This debate will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 will be Acceptance/greeting. You can also put here anything you want to clarify such as from which standpoint you will have. ***Please do not put any arguments in this round. Round 2- Opening argument Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Closing arguments I look forward to this debate! Thank you!
El aborto

我赢得了这场辩论，因为我提出的论据与事实，证据的经验，徽标，道德，和悲怆属实。宝宝是反对堕胎的最佳参数。亲中止运动是成功的一件事是剥离宝宝他或她的人格。只是一个聚集的细胞。只要组织。只是一块肉。医学科学已经改变了这一切。因为我们现在可以从字面上看进入子宫与超声和所谓的2,4 - D超声，有没有问题，以我们正在寻找什么。有什么亲中止做，那么？简单。防止妇女在超声波。在这方面的最新消息，从我们过来的只是少数几个国家。在北达科他州，最近起诉堕胎业务，以防止妇女看到的超声波，这是现在的知情同意的法律有的一部分，即使堕胎诊所反正超声作为一种人工流产前的标准程序。这不是超声，它的母亲，看到什么打胎看到。事实上，我觉得它很有趣，前打胎后有悔改告诉有故事。一个共同点是，他们自己不会看在袜子的仍然是“真空吸尘器”。他们可能早，但别人检查的遗体。他们曾与超声的麻烦，以及。它容易得多，故意视而不见明显恶。有些人终于盼来，并立刻一宗谋杀案，。下面是通过亲生活美国前打胎揭示从几个片段：前堕胎，医生，约瑟夫兰德尔说，“宝宝的超声波图片困扰着我比什么都重要。工作人员不能把它决不允许堕胎的妇女超声。”前堕胎，医生，白乐威说，“我的心脏对事实，我是一个凶手冷酷无情，但在寒冷的碗，婴儿躺在教育我真的是什么流产。”前堕胎，麦克阿瑟山，医生说，“我是杀人犯，我已无辜婴儿的生命，我从他们的母亲的子宫撕开了强大的真空机。”这些前打胎有其很大的罪悔改。他们看到显而易见的道理。他们醒来了红色药丸，看到了现实。不幸的是，大多数的亲中止唤醒和蓝色药丸，然后假装无知的幸福生活。除非他们不要。当一个人做错了事，对道德秩序的东西，良心，执法必严，违法必究。但钟可以忽略不计。随着时间的推移，振铃，贝尔可以听到越来越少，直至该人是音盲，自己的良心。却增强了他们的心脏。不要考虑我的话，虽然。以上述前亲中止的单词。从先导，这里的大卫布鲁尔博士如何从上面终于醒了过来：“我没有一个道德或伦理的背景，当我走进去居住。我记得我亲眼目睹了第一次人工流产。它是由住院医师。我不知道会发生什么。这是我的工作，后来撤消罐子，看里面装的是什么。这是一个全新的体验，我总是发现它令人兴奋的学习新的东西。当我打开小包包，住院医师说，“把蓝色的布上看到，如果我们得到的一切。”“我把毛巾，有一个人的部分。我看到了一个头，肋骨，小手，武器。这是如果有人把我一个热门的扑克。我有良心，和伤害。我说，'我想你明白这一切。“我并没有真正的信念，我被夹在中间。我没有做任何事情。我没有和任何人说话。我看到了另一种人工流产，然后又。因为我看到了更多的人工流产，伤害少。“我所做的就是第一个努力。但一段时间后，它没有伤害。我的心脏是老茧反对的事实，我是一个杀人犯。当我还是一个实习生，我不得不采取“糖果苹果婴儿护理（交付后，盐水堕胎通常看起来颜色相似的糖果苹果，因为皮肤的外层是焚烧有毒的盐溶液的婴儿。）一天晚上，一位女士交付，叫我看到她，因为她是不可控的的。她件，尖叫和颠簸。所有患者均心烦意乱。我走进去，有她的小的盐水堕胎的宝宝踢和移动了一小会儿，之前那些严重烧伤致死。一个通过良知的热扑克的确权。如果该帐户不倒送你的脊椎一阵寒意，不亮为亲生命运动的真相你的火，那么也许你的木材是湿的。点击和阅读其他帐户。什么是在子宫内的现实不再是问题。从本质上讲，它不再是宝宝是什么问题，而是这里的宝宝。这个论点是对宝宝的人格。从本质上讲，亲中止画到同一个角落，亲奴隶制的运动发现，在很多年前。作为参数，然后去了，真的是一个奴隶不是一个人。论点是有两个不同的“人”在美国宪法中。一个奴隶，和其他人之一。只要这听起来今天荒谬的，它关押了多年的水，主要由从板凳上犯下活动家法官立法，而不是维护宪法的司法菲亚特。在历史上的确具有讽刺意味的​​平行。亲中止是今天在同一个地方。如果你想纵容谋杀，只需重新定义为一个非个人的人。中提琴！问题解决了！当然，现实中，是完全不同的，不受人为的法律定义。在任何参数，你发现自己亲中止，或那些骑墙，永远不会忘记的宝宝。谢谢 :)
El aborto

Mira le das un aspecto religioso a tu razonamiento , tu tienes que darle una posiciï¿½n menos religiosa, la religiï¿½n y la ciencia nunca se van a entender. Por ejemplo la iglesia catï¿½lica decï¿½a hace 600 aï¿½os que estaba prohibido, abrir un cuerpo humano, ï¿½existirï¿½a la cirugï¿½a de no ser por el caso omiso que se les hizo?. Tambiï¿½n la iglesia prohï¿½be el uso del condï¿½n, y eso evitarï¿½a los males de sida en ï¿½frica. Y por si no lo sabes la iglesia en determinados evangelios permite el aborto, mira en esta pï¿½gina : http://ciencias.jornada.com.mx.... la biblia reconoce el aborto, ya fuera aparte, yo no tengo en demasï¿½a las cuestiones religiosas, jamï¿½s. Vida por vida entiï¿½ndase todo, hasta los peces que se sacan del mar para comerlos, cuando son demasiado jï¿½venes. La cuestiï¿½n es cientï¿½fica, TE RECUERDO QUE HASTA SEIS SEMANAS ESTOY A FAVOR MAS ALLï¿½ ESTOY EN CONTRA, LO ESPECIFIQUE EN EL ARGUMENTO, aclarado esto no puedes matar una vida por que no es una vida es un conjunto de cï¿½lulas en formaciï¿½n. es como si construyeses una casa y nada mas empezarla la derribases, ï¿½has derribado la casa? no porque no se ha terminado, pues aquï¿½ igual, has matado NO porque todavï¿½a no era una vida, ere un proyecto en construcciï¿½n. E insisto ï¿½no sufre! y por lo tanto no deberï¿½a ser inmoral, depende el concepto de moral que tengas y el que quieras tener.
El aborto

感谢您继续阅读，判断，并进行辩论。事实是，不依赖于宗教亲生命立场。生活逻辑的情况下是完全建成后，在宪法和科学接地处所。的结论，形成了亲生活的论点的症结对这些场所的铅。首先是胎儿是否应被认为是一个人，只有在人工流产的合法性的辩论中的有关问题。如果胎儿是人，然后堕胎是非法的;如果胎儿不是一个人，那么堕胎应当是合法的的。二是胎儿应该被认为是一个人。这些报表包括亲生活的信念，认为堕胎应该是非法的的。我们从宪法中获得的第一个结论。在著名的三联第五修正案规定的权利，最重要的是生命权：“任何人不得被剥夺生命，自由或财产，未经法律的正当程序，”一个无辜的人的权利的卓越生命依然，甚至当它与其他“权利”（无论是法律上现存的或指称的）舒适或选择职业的权利，或与社会各方面的优先事项，如人口控制权等冲突。强调这一点是很重要的，因为亲choicers定期对“妇女权利”的理由证明堕胎合法化。有多么重要，它可能是，以保障所有公民的自由，追求自己选择的的生活方式，这种自由不能使无限的，它需要优先对无辜者的生命权。即使哈里布莱克门，谁写罗伊诉韦德案决定非常正义，承认尽可能多的时，他写道：“如果这个[胎儿]人格的建议成立，上诉人的情况下，当然，崩塌胎儿的权利，生活会保证专门由[宪法]“这里布莱克基本上是赞同的第一支柱：亲生活中的地位。超过堕胎的合法性取决于对胎儿的人格问题进行辩论。常识同意。如果胎儿被视为不是一个人，那么即使亲无期徒刑支持堕胎。但如果一个女人的孩子是阻止她追求她的职业生涯，她有权利杀死他？当然不是。为什么呢？因为孩子是一个人的生命权，优先接管他的父母的自由，追求她选择的职业或生活方式。同样的逻辑也适用于应被视为一个人如果胎儿。在人工流产的合法性的辩论，那么，降低胎儿人格的问题，和一个人的最合理的定义是一个“活的人类有机体。基于种族，年龄，或依赖程度这个定义附加的限制，不可避免地减少歧视。作为生命的女权主义者出版了一本手册所说的那样，“如果我们采取任何物种智人生活的成员，并把他们的法律保护的境界之外，我们削弱了打击其他人的歧视情况下。”科学是明确的，人类的胎儿是一个生活的物种智人成员。单独一个精子和一个卵子是活细胞，但是当他们融合在一起，他们获得的特性（生长，维持动态平衡，等），生物学分配给一个独立的活的有机体。因此，它是受孕的时刻，标志着一个新的人类有机体的开始，因此开始的人格和随之而来的权利。亲生活的论断，堕胎应该是非法的的两个支柱，因此平反只对科学和宪法的权威。我没有一次在这篇文章中呼吁“圣经”或“古兰经”;，无处有“神”或“灵魂”出现的话。莫兰是有权要求宗教中立花的利害关系，而不是跨越。让我们希望，新的显示有助于SSFL其声明校园没有分心无关宗教之间的紧张关系今年一月。人类发展的多的事实：人类一个惊人的迅速发展。给孩子的发展快速背诵，会削弱“不是一个人，还”的心态。心血管系统是第一个主要系统功能。在受孕后22天左右的孩子的心脏开始分发他自己的血，他的母亲的独特的，和他的心跳可在超声检测。在短短6个星期，孩子的眼睛和眼睑，鼻子，嘴和舌头已经形成。电气大脑活动可以被检测到六，七个星期，第八周结束时，已开发的孩子，现在被称为“胎儿”科学，他的所有器官和身体结构。受孕后十个星期的孩子可以使身体动作。今天，家长可以看到自己的孩子用自己的眼睛的发展。产科超音通常在20孕周做不仅提供了照片，但一个孩子在子宫内的积极的生活实时视频：搓着双手，吸吮自己的大拇指，打哈欠，伸懒腰，让打嗝，包括他的耳朵附近的一个响亮的声音 - 甚至面带微笑。医学也证实之前，作为一个独特的人出生的孩子的存在。胎儿手术已成为医疗专业，包括麻醉单独提供给宝宝。您还可以举出一些之前出生的儿童，如分流绕过阻塞尿路，去除肿瘤的尾骨基地，以及治疗先天性心脏disease.There许多其他，进行手术。医学和科学如果不说服你的听众，考虑援引当局的“亲选择”社区本身。提起“赞成选择”女权主义者纳奥米沃尔夫，他在1996年开创性的文章，主张堕胎权利的社会承认“胎儿，在其完整的人类”流产的原因：“一个真正的死亡。”最近，凯特米歇尔曼，较长时间的专业选择美国总统承认，“技术已经明确定义了人们思考如何作为一个完整的胎儿，呼吸人。”摘要：那些声称“没有人知道生命开始时的理由”堕胎不争论，而是科学的政治，哲学，甚至宗教自己的品牌。他们的说法是没有生活开始时，但什么时候，还是，生命值得法律上承认和保护。这给我们带来了我们的下一个主题：法律。总结：堕胎已经离开了我们的社会可怕的洞。 流产，使我们对我们的儿童精神分裂症的民族。 堕胎是一个现代化的的大屠杀，我们是来帮凶，这是滋生无与伦比的暴力。 堕胎是我们从哪个方向，我们可能再也不会回到。堕胎已经迎来了人类的农药，在勇敢的新世界。堕胎导致我们完整的道德主观主义中，我们很容易证明不管它是我们想要做的伦理。谢谢
El aborto

me voy a centrar en contestarte al proyecto de ley 158, el feto no sufre, porque no tiene aï¿½n desarrollado sistema nervioso ni cognitivo, por lo tanto ni sufre, es cierto que diferentes tï¿½cnicas pueden parecer desagradables y crueles, pero se garantiza la humanidad de la interrupciï¿½n de la vida. ï¿½tiene forma de feto? si ï¿½ puede parecer dolor? no. es verdad que tiene un desarrollo a partir de 6 semanas que invita a discernir una morfologï¿½a humana en miniatura, pero aï¿½n asï¿½ no tiene sentido del tiempo y el espacio, no tiene uso de razï¿½n, y no tiene sistema cognitivo por lo que jamï¿½s podrï¿½ sufrir. Ahora bien si el debates es si es ï¿½tico, finalizo esta ronda preguntando ï¿½ Cuantos seres vivos matas al aï¿½o? inconscientemente entiï¿½ndase.
El aborto

我想感谢你们这些阅读判断和对这次辩论的主题是我的对手。让我的对手，丧失了一个圆形的记录显示。1。毋容置疑的医学证据 - 未出生的婴儿是一个人“时代”杂志和兰德麦克纳利的身体状态，地图集“在融合在一起，雌雄配子生产单细胞受精卵，受精卵，这是一个新的个体的开始。”参议院法案158，“人命关条例草案”，正式参议院报告总结了这样的问题：“医生，生物学家和其他科学家都同意概念，标志着一个人的生命的开始 - 一个被认为是活着的，的人类成员，这一点在无数的医学，生物学，和科学著作绝大多数协议。“决定一个人的个性和独创性的一切是建立在受孕。第一个单细胞包含的所有复杂的整个基因蓝图。*心脏开始跳动18至25天。*电气脑波已在43天一个脑电图记录。如果没有脑波表示死亡，为什么会亲堕胎不接受脑波的存在，是一个生活的确认？*大脑和所有身体系统是由8个星期现在和一个月后的运作。* 8个星期，宝宝会唤醒和睡眠，握拳，吸吮自己的大拇指，并获得打嗝。*在9周结束后，宝宝有自己独特的指纹。*在11-12周，宝宝是敏感的热，触摸，光线和噪音。所有的身体系统工作。他重约28克是6-7.5厘米长。他充分发展他的母亲怀孕前更是明显。这是婴儿的年龄，政府说可以杀死任何理由，没有等待期的母亲认为她的决定。从概念，构思新的人是值得任何其他人的法律充分保护。2。由于生命始于受孕，堕胎是类似于谋杀，因为它是人类生命的行为。堕胎是直接无视人类生命的神圣普遍接受的想法堕胎不应被用来作为另一种形式的避孕。计划生育是全国最大的人工流产服务提供商和孕妇流产有96％的服务。事实。据亲的生活组的现场行动，早在1952年，出土了一本小册子，计划生育 - 今天在美国最大的人工流产服务提供商 - 告诉妇女堕胎危险，他们的生命，健康，和生育能力，杀死一个婴儿。从计划计划生育联合会美国（PPFA），强调拥护反堕胎的立场，同时解释人工出生控制现场行动的调查记者发现这本小册子：“使用医学批准的方法来推迟怀孕直到你已经准备好了为止。”对于那些可能会尝试反驳这一点，这里是您需要的文件：在自己的网站从2010年单张来看，计划生育在2008年的324，008堕胎服务，2405通过转介，以及9433产前服务。计算时，人工流产服务的占96％的孕妇提供服务。没有文明的社会，允许一个人故意伤害或另一人不受惩罚的生活，和堕胎是没有什么不同。此外，人工流产常会引起强烈的心理痛苦和压力。3. 宝宝是反对堕胎的最佳参数。亲中止运动是成功的一件事是剥离宝宝他或她的人格。只是一个聚集的细胞。只要组织。只是一块肉。医学科学已经改变了这一切。因为我们现在可以从字面上看进入子宫与超声和所谓的2,4 - D超声，有没有问题，以我们正在寻找什么。有什么亲中止做，那么？简单。防止妇女在超声波。在这方面的最新消息，从我们过来的只是少数几个国家。在北达科他州，最近起诉堕胎业务，以防止妇女看到的超声波，这是现在的知情同意的法律有的一部分，即使堕胎诊所反正超声作为一种人工流产前的标准程序。这不是超声，它的母亲，看到什么打胎看到。事实上，我觉得它很有趣，前打胎后有悔改告诉有故事。一个共同点是，他们自己不会看在袜子的仍然是“真空吸尘器”。他们可能早，但别人检查的遗体。他们曾与超声的麻烦，以及。它容易得多，故意视而不见明显恶。有些人终于盼来，并立刻一宗谋杀案，。下面是通过亲生活美国前打胎揭示从几个片段：前堕胎，医生，约瑟夫兰德尔说，“宝宝的超声波图片困扰着我比什么都重要。工作人员不能把它决不允许堕胎的妇女超声。”前堕胎，医生，白乐威说，“我的心脏对事实，我是一个凶手冷酷无情，但在寒冷的碗，婴儿躺在教育我真的是什么流产。”前堕胎，麦克阿瑟山，医生说，“我是杀人犯，我已无辜婴儿的生命，我从他们的母亲的子宫撕开了强大的真空机。”这些前打胎有其很大的罪悔改。他们看到显而易见的道理。他们醒来了红色药丸，看到了现实。不幸的是，大多数的亲中止唤醒和蓝色药丸，然后假装无知的幸福生活。除非他们不要。当一个人做错了事，对道德秩序的东西，良心，执法必严，违法必究。但钟可以忽略不计。随着时间的推移，振铃，贝尔可以听到越来越少，直至该人是音盲，自己的良心。却增强了他们的心脏。不要考虑我的话，虽然。以上述前亲中止的单词。从先导，这里的大卫布鲁尔博士如何从上面终于醒了过来：“我没有一个道德或伦理的背景，当我走进去居住。我记得我亲眼目睹了第一次人工流产。它是由住院医师。我不知道会发生什么。这是我的工作，后来撤消罐子，看里面装的是什么。这是一个全新的体验，我总是发现它令人兴奋的学习新的东西。当我打开小包包，住院医师说，“把蓝色的布上看到，如果我们得到的一切。”“我把毛巾，有一个人的部分。我看到了一个头，肋骨，小手，武器。这是如果有人把我一个热门的扑克。我有良心，和伤害。我说，'我想你明白这一切。“我并没有真正的信念，我被夹在中间。我没有做任何事情。我没有和任何人说话。我看到了另一种人工流产，然后又。因为我看到了更多的人工流产，伤害少。“我所做的就是第一个努力。但一段时间后，它没有伤害。我的心脏是老茧反对的事实，我是一个杀人犯。当我还是一个实习生，我不得不采取“糖果苹果婴儿护理（交付后，盐水堕胎通常看起来颜色相似的糖果苹果，因为皮肤的外层是焚烧有毒的盐溶液的婴儿。）一天晚上，一位女士交付，叫我看到她，因为她是不可控的的。她件，尖叫和颠簸。所有患者均心烦意乱。我走进去，有她的小的盐水堕胎的宝宝踢和移动了一小会儿，之前那些严重烧伤致死。一个通过良知的热扑克的确权。如果该帐户不倒送你的脊椎一阵寒意，不亮为亲生命运动的真相你的火，那么也许你的木材是湿的。点击和阅读其他帐户。什么是在子宫内的现实不再是问题。从本质上讲，它不再是宝宝是什么问题，而是这里的宝宝。这个论点是对宝宝的人格。从本质上讲，亲中止画到同一个角落，亲奴隶制的运动发现，在很多年前。作为参数，然后去了，真的是一个奴隶不是一个人。论点是有两个不同的“人”在美国宪法中。一个奴隶，和其他人之一。只要这听起来今天荒谬的，它关押了多年的水，主要由从板凳上犯下活动家法官立法，而不是维护宪法的司法菲亚特。在历史上的确具有讽刺意味的​​平行。亲中止是今天在同一个地方。如果你想纵容谋杀，只需重新定义为一个非个人的人。中提琴！问题解决了！当然，现实中，是完全不同的，不受人为的法律定义。在任何参数，你发现自己亲中止，或那些骑墙，永远不会忘记的宝宝。谢谢 :)
El aborto

我接受这个辩论，我希望一个好的轮。1。未出生的婴儿是无辜的人类从受孕的那一刻。他们对生命的基本权利，必须受到保护。2，圣经的旧约第六诫（出埃及记20:13）是“不可杀人”。堕胎涉及杀害一个人，无视来自上帝的诫命。3。胎儿的感觉在人工流产的痛苦Kanwaljeet的JS阿南德，内外全科医学士，哲学博士，在美国田纳西州大学健康科学中心大学儿科，麻醉科和神经生物学教授。 “如果超出妊娠20周的胎儿，我会承担，将会给胎儿造成的疼痛。我相信这将是严重和难以忍受的痛苦。”4。原始文本的希波克拉底誓言，宣誓，医生传统时宣誓就职行医伦理，禁止堕胎。宣誓的一个节曰：“我不会给女人栓[插入阴道设备导致流产。”希波克拉底誓言的现代版本，在1964年写的路易斯宽面条也禁止在其行人工流产，“首先，我必须在上帝不玩。”5。独立国家宣言“[]会说：”人人生而平等，他们赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中有生命，自由和追求幸福的创造者。“允许堕胎直接违背了“开国元勋的意图，为生活在这个国家不可剥夺的权利。6。妇女应使用避孕药，不是流产，防止意外怀孕。一个中心疾病控制和预防中心（CDC）的研究表明，在2006年的堕胎妇女谁收到的19-25％，以前有一个或多个堕胎。如果不提供人工流产，女性也不会这么不小心。7。流产造成的心理伤害。 2002年同行评议的超过173,000美国妇女由南医学杂志“公布的研究发现，妇女谁中止分别为154％，更容易犯的比进行足月的妇女自杀。 1998年4月其合作伙伴已经发现，51.6％的男性报告遗憾的堕胎对男性的社会和临床心理学研究杂志，45.2％感到悲伤，和25.8％，经历了抑郁症。8。有领养婴儿的缺乏，因为堕胎是合法的的。超过两百万对夫妇正在等待通过婴儿，只有134000美国儿童截至2002年6月通过。领养的婴儿的比例已下降到9％的前1973年至1996年和2002年之间出生的1％出生的人。而是有选择的中止，女人应该给他们的人谁也不能生物受孕的弃婴。9。基于遗传异常（优生终止）的选择性堕胎是公开的歧视。物理限制不使这些残疾人比人类的。 1990年美国残疾人法“的规定保护公民权利，为残疾人出生的人，导致满足生活所需。10。堕胎是对美国黑人的种族灭绝的工具。黑人妇女的4.5倍，白人妇女可能有流产。 1876​​黑色的婴儿，每天都被中止。1882年至1968年，3446黑人在美国私刑。在2010年不到三年的天更黑的婴儿死于堕胎。 我要感谢这次辩论的法官和教唆犯。我希望在今天的辩论亲的选票！
El aborto

El aborto, es un medio natural que utiliza la naturaleza, para finalizar el perï¿½odo de gestaciï¿½n. El hecho de que una mujer aborte no debe ser considerado, un crimen. Pues los propios animales abortan cuando las circunstancias lo requieren. ï¿½por quï¿½, seguimos haciendo demagogia, con utilizar la excusa de la vida? ï¿½acaso es vida un cigoto que es mï¿½s pequeï¿½o que una semilla de manzana?. ï¿½ por quï¿½ no se considera el derecho libre a decidir de una mujer? es su vientre ellas deciden. ?No serï¿½a mï¿½s prï¿½ctico pensar que toda mujer tiene derecho a interrumpir su embarazo, si determinadas circunstancias (ejemplo: agresiï¿½n sexual, vergï¿½enza en la familia, error de adolescente, etc), lo precisan?. El argumento estï¿½ a favor, hasta cierto punto a partir de 12 semanas el argumento estï¿½ en contra.
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

my first arguments is that I am not the rudest person alive, I will seek to prove this point by demonstrating that I am a) A nice person b) Not as rude as you. To prove that I ama nice person, I spend an hour last night writing up a song in your honour that I've been planning to sing at your funeral. the song is even worth about as much as you! :D (make a tune in your head before you read it) On the day that you were born, your mother cried and cried. she became too much folorn, so she hung herself and died. Dum de la dee, YOUR Dum dem de la hey, REALLY Dem dum de la de dey DUMB. Your father was a pathetic maid, she spat upon your grave. but when at last to rest she laid, you threw her in a cave. Dum de la dee, YOUR Dum dem de la hey, REALLY Dem dum de la de dey DUMB. your sister was but 2 years old when she beat you to a pulp. Its times like that I really lol'd you're a miserable old whulp. Dum de la dee, YOUR Dum dem de la hey, REALLY Dem dum de la de dey DUMB. (the end, -just in case you didnt notice-) I would write more, But as I said, its supposed to relect your inner value. So, moving onto my next contention, you are ruder than me. Its true. And my last argument is that I am not alive. So i cant be the rudest person alive Now in a conversation I had with Elkyriaze some minutes ago, he said that he would be happy to share and help with any burdens I have. And so I humbly request that he also share and take my burden of proof. Its getting rather heavy. Now, in conclusion, I hope my opponent is very impressed by my superior sense of integrity and kindness when he comes back from wasting his time in the real world. I am the nicest person not alive :)
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

I accept your rude invitation to a debate and will somehow prove that: a) your existence is rude b) You insult humanity with your stench c) you insult DDO with your presence here Firstly, definitions: Benjamin Smith is the guy masquerading as smithereens. Rude: Everything or anything like Benjamin Smith person: male or female, has to have: a) An ability to reason on a level of sentience b) A brain c) A kidney Alive: A state of consciousness similar to the one that I experince when I'm awake. my first argument: You're existence is an insult to us all and you would be better of being a pony. my third argument: i can smell you from here, so I bet everyone else can too, that is insulting and violates a part of the DDO laws that was about to be invented. My second argument: You're a disgrace to DDO, all you ever do is enter debates just to say condescending things about the opponents life. In conclusion, even if you werent born i could smell you, and DDO is insulted too, he would also like to say hi.
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

Greetings, my intelligent young friend :) I hope your having a wonderful day. i wish to continue the argument that we were having via messages that I am the rudest person alive. If you make your usually perfect and graceful decision to accept this debate and avoid being a bling hypocrite, I will advocate the following claims: a) I am not the rudest person alive. b) I can't be the rudest person alive if im not alive. d) My claims are true because you are incredibly fat and you cause large stellar sized depressions in the space-time fabric comparable to black holes. Which is very rude. and which therefore means that you are ruder than me. No normal conduct rules apply with the exceptions of forfeits. Forfeiting an argument is like forfeiting your life -Dont do it- and on a much more problematic note, it will lose you 7 points. Probably wont be a problem for you, but you have been neglecting you online life in exchange for a real one lately; expect severe negative repercussions.