BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Thanks, Tidin. - REBUTTALS - >"E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do. " Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead? >"I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate. " Looking at it in a purely political perspective, is that grounds to take away someone's civil rights? Such a policy is preempted by the right to choose procedures for yourself -- would you agree with the state not allowing you to have a kidney transplant? Or forcing you to undergo artificial insemination? >"If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details. " Those 'mere details' prove the legitimacy of your case. So far you are denying someone of the right to choose their own procedures because you cannot prove if they used a condom. >"3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]. " The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then? [1] Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice. >"Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human. " Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder. >"a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)? " Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility. >"b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide. " Simply because it is currently in place doesn't make it 'logical' or even a viable argument. I'm sure you'd argue against slavery being a morally acceptable form of labor and yet at one point it was legal.
Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Thanks for the opposition. E = Explanation O = Observation Neg Rebuttal: "I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion?" E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do. I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate. If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details. "Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death." E2) In the case of life of the mother, the woman has the right to kill in self defense. The child is considered the aggressor against the actors life or death circumstance. ""Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is: "Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity" E3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]. Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human. Excerpt: "So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine- month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species" O1) Double Standards a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)? b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide. I will go on to further my argument in the next round. I went over the character limit and already cut a lot out. [1]http://www.walterblock.com...
The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true.

Let be begin by thanking my opponent for his time and for his arguments. ========= Contention 1: Invalid logic ========= "Premise - Christian theism is true Contention - These users have violated some portion of Christian Theism Conclusion - They are probably going to hell." - JustCallMeTarzan Tarzan assumes that the premises are valid without defending them and thus begs the question. [1] ========= Contention 2: Semantics and invalid logic cannot establish the truth of metaphysical propositions. ========= Since my opponent has already conceded that, "What we are arguing is the conclusion of the resolution, not the premises it rests on", then he must logically defend the conclusion, which is the following. ----> The following users will probably go to hell: (I-am-a-panda) (idontbelieveit) (SWfiend) (Ragnar_Rahl) (JBlake) (Nags) (Rezzealaux) (TheSkeptic) (atheistman) (Maikuru) (MTGandP) (comoncents) (Realist) (tmhustler) (theLwerd) (RoyLatham) and, of course, myself (Freeman) He supports this conclusion by writing the following. ----> "Given my opponent's premise that Christian theism is true, I affirm the resolution by stating that these users (though I do NOT know how I am absent from the list), will ALMOST CERTAINLY go to hell."- JustCallMeTarzan What kind of epistemology could my opponent possibly embrace that would lead him to conclude that this is a sound argument? One simply cannot speak of certainties for a proposition when the reasoning used to support those certainties is logically invalid. [2] ========= Contention 3: My opponent's analysis of the resolution fails. ========= My opponent asserts that it is his responsibility to try and negate the resolution. This is false. My opponent's goal isn't to try and negate the resolution because he took the PRO side of this debate. He is affirming the resolution by taking PRO and thus would be arguing in favor of the resolution, which is: ----> "The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true." Since my opponent is arguing in the affirmative the burden of proof is on him to show why this statement is true with evidence. [3] Instead of doing this he has decided to engage in a vigorous campaign of casuistry, obscurantism, and semantics. –Vote Con All the best, Freeman ====== Sources ====== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true.

What we are arguing is the conclusion of the resolution, not the premises it rests on. Since the resolution contains the given statement that Christian Theism is true, and the actual contention is that the users will go to hell, an affirmation of the resolution affirms the contention, not the premises. In other words, since the instigator included this premise in the resolution, it is unarguable because it forms the framework for the debate. If my opponent wants to give up one of the premises his resolution rests on, it is the same as though the resolution had not been put forth at all - in which case the resolution defaults to the side of inaction - assuming the resolution is true. My opponent's resolution can be understood to be "Given that Christian theism is true, the following users are probably going to hell." The only way I see to negate this resolution is: The following users are probably NOT going to hell because Christian Theism is true. This negation makes no sense: The following users will probably go to hell because Christian Theism is false. And the double negation is a nonsensical statement: The following users will probably not go to hell because Christian Theism is false. This negation also makes no sense because it's self-verifyingly true, and cannot urge a change in the status quo, as is the instigator's burden.... ************************************************* So the only negation my opponent can really argue is: "The following users are probably NOT going to hell because Christian Theism is true." None of my opponent's arguments point toward this negation. I merely need to save the status quo. AFFIRMED.
The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true.

I can see where my opponent has decided to go and I'm more than willing to take on his logic. Normally this would upset me, but right now I'm perfectly happy. :) ========= Contention 1: Flawed Logic ========= In order for an argument to be logically valid the premises have to be true. [1] Therefore even if my opponent were to interpret my resolution to be what follows below he would still have a burden of proof to show why the premises are true. He assumes that the premises are valid in his argument and thus commits an obvious logical fallacy. "Premise - Christian theism is true Contention - These users have violated some portion of Christian Theism Conclusion - They are probably going to hell." - JustCallMeTarzan Since my antagonist has given no arguments to defend any of the premises then I maintain that all my arguments against Christian theism shall stand. Vote Con Best, Freeman ====== Sources ====== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true.

Resolution: "The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true." Reworded: "Because Christian theism is true, the following users will probably go to hell." Separated: Premise - Christian theism is true Contention - These users have violated some portion of Christian Theism Conclusion - They are probably going to hell. ********************************************************** Given my opponent's premise that Christian theism is true, I affirm the resolution by stating that these users (though I do NOT know how I am absent from the list), will ALMOST CERTAINLY go to hell. AFFIRMED.
abortion

I don't believe abortion is ethical under any circumstance, Except for when the mother's life is at risk, Because then, Of course the mother comes first. Nobody is going like "if one goes down then both must go down! ", That is simply notresonable or rational in any way. But, In the case of rape, For example, I don't believe the child in the womb should receive the death penalty for the crimes of the father. The rapist should be tracked down, He should be held at the full extent of the law and killed or castrated. As for the mother, She should be given all the support that she can possibly be given to help her throughout her pregnancy, Through state funded services and charities. Not the baby genocidal organisation of Planned Parenthood! If you had ever encountered the child of a rape victim or a woman who carried through with her pregnancy after suffering the horrible injustice of rape, You would come to realise that having the child is not as awful as it is made out to be. Actually your very own unique child will help you through the pain of the past. All governments should stop funding organisations like Planned Parenthood that do not support women in any way, Shape or form and manipulate them into using their abortion services to make billions of dollars for the greedy men at the top and murder 50 million children yearly. Instead, The world needs to start funding services to actually support women through pregnancies and make their difficult situations pleasant and make them feel like they are cared about. Abortion does not unrape you or make you unpregnant, It just makes you the parent of a deceased child. Does no one have the cop on to realise you cannot solve one violent act by another violent act.
abortion

I continue to be disappointed in anti-abortion responses to potential solutions. If you check all my debates, Every single anti-abortionist forfeits the following round(s). It seems to say something about the mindset that focuses on the problem and not the solutions. If you'd like to debate me on abortion and actually have responsible responses to the solutions we should all agree on, Please direct message me. I really don't understand how we can't all agree to disagree on what we should value as life but continue to work together to solve the problem that arises from this disagreement. May your thoughts be pure, -Thoht
abortion

You have really made me think. However I would just like to point out a few errors in your arguments. First of all I do not think you read my first debate fully, You say I make the exception that abortion as acceptable after rape and you also say I cited to abstonance from sex as a solution to abortions, Which I did not. . However, I am very pro-contraception. 1. I agree that the woman takes precedence over the child in the womb, Therefore if the mother's life is in danger eg. She has cancer and is pregnant and needs the chemo to save her life, But a bi-product of that is that the baby will be aborted. The only logical solution to that situation would be to treat the woman with chemo and any decent obstatrition would know that, Even in a country where abortion is against the law. However, As I have said before, There is a line that needs to be drawn, When the mother just finds it inconvenient to have the child, Or dislikes the gender, Race or the fact that a child had a disability etc. I think it is totally unethical to have an abortion in any case like this. A reason for this is because the child in the womb is a human being and that is inarguable, As regards scientific fact. The other reason is to do with justice and equality, Which are two things nested in your nations most fundamental documents ie. The Constitution, Bill of Rights. All humans deserve to be protected under the law, If you are going to exclude an entire section of the human race, Because they are dependant on others, Or biologically immature, Or temporarily incapable of certain high-level biological functions, That is a legal form of discrimination, And discrimination of the highest order. 2. I believe that human life begins at conception, Because by this point the sperm and egg have fused to form a zygote, (the earliest development stage of a human being). He or she is not merely a potential human, Because there is no such thing (you are either human or not), Therefore an unborn child has the same inherant value as a born child (inherant meaning belonging to it by its nature), Because inherant value is inherant. If human life had conditional value, Human value would be acquired over the years and there would be nothing wrong with slavery, Genocide etc. Also, Just because abortion is legal, Does not make it ok. Slavery and the Holocaust were once legal and I think we can both agree that that does not justify them in any way, Shape or form.
The sun is better than the moon

Before beginning, however, I would like to remind voters that my opponent has not produced any argument whatsoever for this debate; therefore, in order to win I must provide a single argument as to why the Moon is better (or equal to) the Sun. 1. It is possible to colonize the Moon. Now, while people may disagree with this statement, do you not think that it is more likely we would colonize the Moon (or even Mars) compared to the Sun? After all, it would be nearly impossible for us to colonize the Sun, considering the extreme intense heat that would burn us to a crisp; however, it is possible that we may colonize the Moon. One reason is that astronauts have discovered water on the Moon, which in turn will increase our chances of living there. This water can also be used as rocket fuel: "Having that store of water on the moon could be a boon to possible future lunar camps. In addition to a source of drinking water, lunar water ice could be broken into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms, ultimately to be used in rocket fuel. " [1]Let's not forget that the Moon is way closer to the Earth than the Sun is, which would mean that we can transport items and supplies in a much more efficient way. Conclusion-I know this was short, but I believe that the one argument I provided is sufficient enough to win me this debate. Anyways, my point is that it is easier to colonize the Moon, but it is not possible to colonize the Sun. Thank you. [1] . http://www.space.com...
Gods Existence.

Well,According to the Qur'an, I say that Allah is real. If you see any signs of the word Allah in arabic, it is a miracle. There are actually a lot of signs so far of the word Allah in arabic. Those signs are the tracing of the ear and your hand. Also, (story on the news long ago) a very bad non-religous boy was buried somewhere. After a day, the doctors digged him up because they forgot to do something (which they shouldn't). When they digged up the boy, his face was yellow and there were a lot of scars. According to Anwar Al-Awlaki (as Americans call him terrorists) said that during the time of the grave, you will get punished and hit by the snake if you are astray from the path of Allah (god). He was hit by a snake and had many scrapes of the snake. This shows proof that god is real.I will expand more if needed.If my opponent rebuts this and I am unable to rebut him, my opponent wins. If my opponent will not rebut mine and just show some random facts, I win.I thank my opponent for making this debate with me.Good luck on the rebuttal :p
Communism

If communism improved Russia there would not be such a big problem with it right now. In theory, yes communism provides but you are incorrect about the clothing. Following communism by definition means that everyone is exactly the same. They are all treated the same and given healthcare and salary yes but are essentially working for one large leader and have no sense of possession. Both North Korea and Russia are not complete communists and I think the rulers do that for a reason because they would lose a lot of their power. I completely see where you are coming from in that equality should be given and our government is very far from perfect however in reality communism would only provide destruction for the country. As I mentioned early complete communism would bring a lack of motivation to all citizens for they would have no reason to take any job that requires doing something they don't like. While it would employ people who are jobless and give them healthcare and a home, none of those things would be at all luxurious. Going back to the lack of motivation, if a doctor gets payed the same amount as a taxi driver, what kind of doctor would the patient really be getting. All houses and food would be made by fellow people and completely uniform and immaculate with no form of expression. Communism is also an absolute monarchy and you can go back and literally watch what happens when absolutism comes into government. (it doesnt work out)
Communism

You don't have to wear the same clothes, you are still an individual. And capitalism is highly unfair, because you have more money you have more rights...you get tax breaks, you get the better stuff servants nice cars a driver etc. Russia was suffering from inflation, the economy was really bad communism improved it (slightly). If America were to turn communist (ya know and no one screwed it up) every one will be wealthy, health care would be provided for all, jobs for all. and in reality you are provided for...
Communism

we could go back and fourth with examples of good leaders. there has never in history been a country that was completely communist where everyone ate the same food wore the same clothes and while it may seem good that everyone recieves the same income no matter what their job, what kind of motivation is that? If the person who picks up garbage once a week gets paid the same amount as a doctor who is working around the clock to keep his patients safe, people are going to choose the easier job and all neccessary jobs that are diffiucult will drop off. the other thing is many people see communism to be very boring where everyone must wear the same clothes eat the same food have no actual possessions. I dont want to say this but there is a reason nobody has or is commmunist. it doenst work out
Communism

Although Communism looks good on paper, it really leads to destruction. The best example to prove my point is North Korea. They are communists and everyone is equal except for the people of high power. The common people are extremely poor, have no money, no personal possessions and often starve. No matter what their job they are all given the same minescule ration while at the same time the leaders and people of high power collect an extremely high income and live a very lavish life. Communism may seem like the perfect form of government in a perfect world, however it is really an unfair balance between the common people and their leader and allows no form of personal possession or rights
abortion should be illegal including first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

the word law has many definitions. such as. "any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation" really though, this is beside the point. semantics are always beside the point. there's no reason we can't have laws that are not enforced, no matter what's customary. it is unfortunate con wishes to engage in semantics instead of engage in substance. it makes you wonder about whether he really has much to say in terms of substance at all. the debate was only over once con took the debate.
abortion should be illegal including first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

Law1 [law] Show IPA noun 1. 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. Since my opponent did not offer a definition of a law, I thought it would be prudent to do so. Notice the last few words of the definition: "enforced by judicial decision". So a law is something that is "enforced". This makes my opponent's resolution impossible. This is because for something to be illegal, it must violate a law. And for something to be a law, it must be enforced. With all due respect to my opponent, this debate is basically over. It was over before it began. Please vote Con. Source: Dictionary.com