BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction

Hey, don't worry about it Fernir, I think everyone has the experience of having an argument seems better in their head than it does spoken or typed! It seems to me that in your last post you're now going exclusively for the argument that, because there is no option for reproduction without allowing for some miscarriages we simply have to accept this fate. One of my rebuttals to this argument was that other means of reproduction that are safer for the fetus could be explored and you respond by mentioning that artificial insemination does not actually protect the fetus any more than sexual reproduction does. As I see it, this rebuttal of yours has three conclusions: 1. We should make it illegal for women with poor uterine walls to conceive because they are creating an unnecessary risk to fetuses. In fact, we should probably make fertility tests mandatory for women who are attempting to conceive and make conceptions without these tests a crime. 2. If it is theoretically possible for a more efficient means of impregnating women to exist, we should simply wait for that technology and ban sexual reproduction for the time being. Now, I'm not up on the latest in reproductive science, but given the pace of technology, it seems likely that this will occur. 3. You, and all other pro-lifers, should be against the use of the birth control pill because while this pill often prevents ovulation, it also thins the lining of the uterine wall, increasing the chance of miscarriage. Since I doubt you're willing to accept these conclusions, I think my argument is in tact. Finally, I'm not really sure that I agree with the ethical premise of the argument. You seem to think that the death of some is justifiable for the life of many. This is utilitarianism 101, a consequence that many people have a problem with. In fact, your argument is analogous to a classic anti-utilitarian argument. Imagine that you are a doctor in a hospital and an otherwise healthy man wanders into your clinic for an appendectomy. After testing the patient, it turns out that his organs match the type needed for four other patients who are awaiting organ transplant and will die without one. Should you kill the man to save the others? Most people say no, but utilitarianism is probably forced to say yes. But, your argument is actually worse than this scenario because you are saying we should allow the death of fetuses for the life of potential people. If you endorse utilitarianism, then your argument might fly. If not, I cannot accept that it is justifiable to kill innocent people so that others can live. Thanks for the debate, it was interesting to finally get some feedback on my argument.
The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction

I hate to say it, but I did make a pretty big mistake and forgot to consider artificial insemination in my first argument. However, artifical insemination does not necessarily guarantee a successful pregnancy. Statiscally, even fewer artificial pregnancies survive than those naturally conceived. While there is no set rate of success for an artificial pregnancy, as there are many contributing factors that affect the success, the mean is only around 25%, while no clinic has been able to boast more than around 60%, which is the same of the rate of natural conceptions. Thus artificial insemination does not serve as a definitely safer alternative. Also, therefore, because the risk is inevitably present, whether artifically or naturally conceived, I believe my first argument is still valid. With regards to your rebuttal, it would not be analagous to the situation of pregnancy unless the doctor treating the child did not create any definite change in his chance of survival, in which case his actions really had no significance. The difference in natural and artifical and natural conception success rates is typically only present when a couple is having significant problems with natural conception, in which case they typically and rightly do turn to artifical means. Of course, some do contest that even artifical insemination is wrong, but I think that would be a separate argument. Now, with regards to the idea of a woman constantly being pregnant. Really, I just addressed this in order to prevent that argument being raised to my own point that deciding not to have a child would be "killing" it more than putting it in risk--I probably put it better in the original argument...see the last paragraph of my first response. In other words, I do not hold it to be valid it any way; I just brought it up to preempt the possibility of that argument being raised against me. My appologies for the lack of clarification in my previous argument, and any potential ones in this. Things tend to always sound better in my head, and I sometimes have a somewhat difficult time deliniating my ideas so that others understand them as well.
The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction

I take the "pro-life" position in the debate over abortion to be endorsing the idea that "life begins at conception" and thus, they reject abortion because once sperm and egg fuse, we have a morally significant entity. I am arguing that this position is absurd because it necessarily leads to the conclusion that sexual reproduction is bad. Here is why: I remembered hearing in a class I took a while back that a large percentage of fertilized eggs (conceptions) do not make it to full-term birth. To back this fact up, I did a quick search on the internet and found a New England Journal of Medicine article which confirms this fact, by claiming that "Only 50 to 60 percent of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks of gestation. Of the pregnancies that are lost, 75 percent represent a failure of implantation and are therefore not clinically recognized as pregnancies." (if you have access the citation is Norwitz, E.R. . "Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy." The New England Journal of Medicine vol. 34508 Nov. 2001 1400-1408.) This fact means that when you try to get pregnant through usual sexual reproduction, 50-60 percent of the eggs that are fertilized DIE. If you are a pro-lifer, this should be extremely troubling because that means that when you have sex and fertilization occurs you are placing a being with full moral status at a 50-60% chance of death. If you take the view that conception is the moment of moral significance, then you should not be willing to engage in normal sexual reproduction, because the risk of some horrible happening is so high. To argue against this position, you must take it as a premise that life begins at coneption and that normal (not scientifically aided) reproduction is OK.
The LDS church has fundamental flaws that prevent it from being the true church.

Whether or not the LDS church is the closest church to whatever Jesus instilled, it still has fundamental flaws that simply prevent it from being the true church. The first reason is simply the fact that the probability of Nephites and Lamanites populating Central and northern South America in the numbers described in the Book of Mormon is minimal at best. There has been absolutely no evidence to support this whatsoever, just empty claims in the Book of Mormon, whereas with things like Jerusalem, there's obviously evidence to at least support the claim. Another reason is the excommunication of intellectuals from the church. I have heard a few tales of people who wrote books on the subject, who brought out the church's flaws, but not directly attacking the church since they were themselves Mormon. They quickly got excommunicated from the church, and were told they were going to hell. This is unjust, unmoral, and simply wrong. My third reason is that Mormons are discouraged and frowned upon if they don't hold up to what they're supposed to do. The two main things I'm referring to is going on a mission and marrying a fellow Mormon and having lots of Mormon babies, and then getting sealed in the temple. These people are frowned upon in the church underneath forced smiles, when they have done nothing wrong. Another reason is the fact that the majority of people in the church believe that whereas the world has changed dramatically from the founding of the church, the church has stayed the same. Although they can take great comfort in that false fact, this is simply not true. I remember once in sacrament meeting when the bishop announced to the congregation that one of our members had broken the law and was taken into custody for stealing thousands of dollars. I still remember to this day what he said: "I know in my heart that he did not do anything wrong." How...unchanged... My last so far is that a fourteen year old transcribed the Book of Mormon, and it was a young man that made empty claims that he had seen God and Jesus. This...is unbelievable, to the point that I no longer believe it. Good luck to my contender. I look forward to the debate.
America is a Christian Nation

Upon second look at the treaty, I must say that I actually agree with the wording. Let's take a look at the wording. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" I think I can just simply state this so I'll do my best. I think that the US was founded on Christian PRINCIPLES, not the Christian RELIGION. We have 7,000 different denominations of the Christian religion so it's not like we could even found the nation on a Christian religion if we tried too, but the Christian principles such as ALL men are created equal (please don't bring up slavery, I've already taken this into account and don't want to debate this here...), the sanctity of life, freedom, and others. And here's something to think about... This debate is called "America is a Christian NATION" not "America is a Christian GOVERNMENT" Here's a question... Can a nation be Christian only if it's government is Christian? I think there are plenty of nations (meaning a nation in the sense of a group of people) that disagree with their governments. Throughout history the nations of England, India, Rome, Israel, France, Spain, Burma, Germany, Russia, China, and I would even say America is displeased with it's current gvn't right now. I'm not going to argue with you anymore on whether or not our founders were Christian because we can speculate back and forth on what they said for ages. My main point for this argument is that a our gvn't may not be Christian, but the Nation Certainly can be, and with an 80% of the population professing Christianity, I would say that yes we are a Christian nation.
America is a Christian Nation

Hi! This is my first debate on this site, so I thought I'd start of with a hello to the community! I would also like to apologize if I miscategorized the debate. It seemed like it could fit equally well into politics or religion. That being out of the way, I shall begin. It is often said-- particularly by right wing politicians and pundits-- that America was founded as a Christian Nation and that we must therefore pass laws in accordance with the Christian religion. However, it is my view that the evidence-- especially the writings of many of this nation's founders-- indicates otherwise. I shall begin by pointing to the Treaty of Tripoli[1], also known as the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Article 11 of this treaty states: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Interestingly enough, this article was apparently not in the Arabic copy of the treaty-- however, that is irrelevant, because it is the English version of the treaty: the version that included the above article, that was ratified by the US Senate in 1797. The entirety of the treaty, including Article 11, was read aloud on the senate floor, and it was ratified by a unanimous vote-- indicating that every senator agreed with the contents of the treaty. Indeed, after being approved, the treaty was reprinted, in whole, in multiple newspapers, and again, there was not a single complaint from the general populace. If the US was indeed founded upon the Christian religion, then you would think that the people of the time-- a majority of whom would have been alive during the nation's founding-- would have objected. As this is not the case, one can only conclude that Article 11 is a valid claim. Predating this treaty, however, our own Constitution denies any religious founding principle for our nation. It explicitly forbids any religious test to hold public office, and the Bill of Rights forbids any establishment of an official state faith, or any restriction on the free practice of religion. Furthermore, many of the founding fathers were not actually Christians. They were students of the enlightenment, and a large number of them, not surprisingly in this context, were deists. Even the Christians among them, however, were ardent secularists-- they believed that the government and religion had no business interfering with each other. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
There should be no underage sex law

You have failed to give me anything to debate, for your arbitrary resolution is more like an arbitrary opinion, unsubstantiated by illogical conclusions. I have prooved my evidence that is contrary to your arbitrary "resolution" (rather opinion) First off, I push forth the Social Contract. Since teenagers lack full discretion and maturity, which is a scientific fact which I hope you do not force me to cite, they are at a giant risk of harming themselves. The Social Contract, which every democratic constitution in the world depends on, shows that the government has an obligation in protecting the citizen: "In order to remedy the incoveniences resulting from a state of nature in which every man is judge of his own acts, men enter into a contract, thereby creating a civil society empowered to judge men and to defend the natural rights of men" ("Of Civil Government: The Second Treatise" by John Locke) This leads to my second point. The law that forbids underage sex is part of a larger law- parents' should have control of what their children do till a legal age (varies between states and countries). Parent's have the right to control their children. Keep in mind, in some states/countries, sexual relations are allowed for underage teenagers with the parents consent for legal marriage (so the father doesn't simply run away. Legal action can be taken if he does). But if it is not for marriage, it's considered statuatory rape. Why? Because it is too young of an age to have sex and risk a baby- which leads back to the social contract. The Government should work as a moral agent: protect the citizen. The government understands that a teenage mother will have it extremely difficult. Face abortion or raise a child with no money, a father who will most likely run away, and unlikely opportunity for College. Their must be underage sex laws so the parents have the right to control their own child (to a legal age) so to be able to raise them to be responsible adults and because the Government has an obligation to protect everyone of their citizens, not ony from others, but from themselves too (and that is why we have state run insane wards). And then I countered your comments or opinons: Not everyone is having sex. I think next time, if you find my sarcasm to be offensive, you should comment about it THEN read the rest of the argument.
There should be no underage sex law

No underage law... hmmm, I see. *sarcasm* You are right, their should be now law against pleasure. Those people who just love to go shoot things should go shoot things!; those people who love to go rape things should go rape things!; those people who love to punch things should go punch things!!; those people who love to get high and drugged up to the point of death should be able to get high and drugged up to the point of death!! Screw John Locke and the Founding Fathers who strongly believed and endorsed the concept that the Government has an obligation to the common citizen for protection, not only from others, but from themselves! In other words, to hell with the Social Contract!!! ...... ..... I've always wondered how it would be to be in a state of anarchy. Anarchist seem to say it would be great and orgasmic, but it doesn't seem that way. You know, the fact of the matter is this: The age limit on sexual relations is part of a large law that most Americans endorse, that is that Parents have control of their children. Well, at least till they come of legal age. I don't think it is all that horrible to be supported and loved by your parents, in which they have far more discretion and usage of wisdom than over-hormoned horny teenager who want to do it all the time. Lol, and to say that condoms "MUST BE USED" is like telling a murderer that he has to shoot you in the head to make it a faster death for you. The fact is, most teenagers still fail to use a condom (even though that percentage has been going down as of late). Besides, to force people to use condems is a violation of our rights. That's why them Republicans haven't already made it law, because if they could, they would have already! And quite the contrare my fair lady. I'm a pretty hot guy, and I have come across many of situations (lol, especially in College) where I could have had sex with girls who have yearned for it. Inches away to be more precise. But I haven't. Why? Well, personal convictions have nothing to do with this debate so i'll just leave it at that. Not everybody is doing it. I think its more fair to say that everybody WANTS to do it. Enjoy
The Bible is Misleading and No actual evidence to support God's existence

To clarify: I (Pro) agree with the title of this debate 'The Bible is Misleading and No actual evidence to support God's existence' and shall provide the evidence that I must do to support my claim My opponent (Con) will most likely be religious but this may not have to be the case and he/she must disprove me and my statement by proving the existence of God and how the Bible is not misleading. The rounds shall be structured as follows: (R[number] represents round number) R1 - Accepting the debate and any comments or concerns you may make before we start. R2 - Main argument R3 - Rebuttal to main argument R4 - Rebuttal to opponents rebuttal of your main argument R5 - Conclusion for the audience (no additional points may be made by this stage. So be sure to have included them before moving onto R4 at least) This shall make the debate fair for both the Instigator (Pro) and the Contender (Con) Info: If the person wishes to make a citation from the Bible, they must give that reference (e. g. Genesis 3:5) etc. You get the idea. I hope this to be a professional debate and await acceptance of my contender. Best of luck to you (my opponent). Over to you, Con
Morality is Grounded in God.

If my opponent would like to discuss the arguments for the existence of the soul then we shall do that in another debate. In this debate, We will assume that Humans have souls. I am not saying that Religion is the basis for Morality I said Theism was and I made a distinction between Theism and Religion. I would all the voters to take note of this. What? You didn't disprove my distinction if anything you reaffirmed it! Voters, Please take note! Once again I was not arguing that Morality is based on Religion but instead Theism and I made a distinction that you didn't defeat and so the argument still stands. Your arguments, However, Do not! Voters, Please take note. Man! Are you reading my arguments? I showed how the argument from moral reactions can be treated as an empirical proof for the existence of moral realism. This can be applied to all moral oughts including thou shalt not steal. What? No Scientific laws are descriptive epistemic and moral laws are not scientific they do not describe what happens they prescribe what ought to happen. Please stop confusing the terms. Voters, Please take notice. Thank you for reiterating what the debate is about. Yes, You could argue that stealing is wrong because it goes against your self-interest that doesn't mean it isn't objectively wrong and I would argue that it still is but I guess for the sake of discussion I will give you another example. Humans ought to love and care for innocent children instead of torturing them. I have no way of confirming that your father is an engineer but here's the thing is your father the only engineer? No, He is not and so while your father may no do something other might. Depends on what throw I am trying to make. No, It is verifiable take the argument from moral reactions. The distinction isn't blurred we did not make moral laws just as we didn't make the laws of Logic we simply discovered these things. Basically what I am saying is that we didn't make the moral oughts we just debated and discovered the oughts. We made a computer but the raw minerals and the energy used to run the computer was not made by humans. Beethoven made the 5th symphony but he did not make the notes themselves alone he only took the notes and arranged them to make his symphony. Do you know what Moral Convergence is? You can't have Moral Convergence and Progress without that rationality. The point is that If humans are progressing and converging in their morals than that means that we are working towards an objective standard when you get rid of the factual errors than rationality comes into full force. I will make a concession. Objective Morality cannot exist with God. No longer just Morality. My mistake. Now that we have cleared that up it is verifiable. No Evil is in the ACTIONS of Rational Agents, Not the Rational Agents themselves. Conclusion: My opponent still hasn't defeated my arguments and can do better. Please try again.