BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Middle class or rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish(see rules below)

Thank you for your response. 1. "Many women could be in higher education or are really working hard for a promotion. Having a baby would not only make them look bad but would almost force a woman to take care of it" First of all, you should add periods at the end of your sentences. I'm not trying to be rude, but your response had many errors in punctuation. It is important to consider this especially since grammar is an important indicator of who wins debates on most websites including this one. Second of all, this argument has nothing to do with abortions past the first trimester. 2. Yes, sometimes men break up with women when they find out they are pregnant. However, this also has nothing to do with abortion occurring after the first trimester. Most men don't leave their girlfriends when they find they are pregnant, and when they do they usually leave them by the first trimester anyways, because that's usually when the man finds out she's pregnant. However, even if this is not the case, if the woman doesn't tell her partner about her pregnancy as soon as possible, she is selfish. This is because she is showing a lack of interest in aborting the fetus before it achieves a higher level of consciousness. She is also being incredibly irresponsible. 3 and 4. Yes, but abortion doesn't usually occur because of heath related concerns. You might want to look more closely at my arguments before the next round. Also, BoP (Burden of Proof) is shared, so my resolution only has to apply in MOST cases. Your concluding statement is flawed. Obviously everyone makes mistakes, but it important to rectify those mistakes as soon as possible(in this case, by the end of the first trimester).
Middle class or rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish(see rules below)

Okay thanks for the clarification Now on to the meat of the issue Many women have abortions for multiple reasons 1) FInacially unstable Many women could be in higher education or are really working hard for a promotion. Having a baby would not only make them look bad but would almost force a woman to take care of it Why? Firstly motherly instincts when you have a child kicks in and you feel a overwhelming desire to keep the child whether you can support it or not Secondly even if a woman could overcome those motherly instincts society could push her to not get it adopted 2) Relationship issues Sometimes when women get pregnant men leave them. I know its a terrible thing but its also terrible to force women into being a single mom and raising their child. 3) Health issues for the mother In many cases birth can kill the mother who is experiencing other illnesses Here is an article of a woman who was middle class who died after being refused an abortion http://www.bbc.com... 4) Health issues of the Fetus Genetics of the parents can cause extreme birth defects that could kill or make the child suffer. It doesn't make sense to call them selfish when they are looking out for the babies interest. Also I understand you said abortion is sometimes necessary but under YOUR arguments even the women in the situation 3 and 4 are selfish people In all these situations the women is not the selfish one. Mistakes happen in life and nobody needs their life or career ruined because of one mistake. Sources: http://womensissues.about.com... http://www.bbc.com...
Middle class or rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish(see rules below)

To answer Con's question: I will do my best to be unbiased about rule breaking from both me and my opponent. However, I must have rule 11 to help make sure nobody tries to deconstruct my debate. Now that that's out of the way, the reason I think rich or middle class women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish is self explanatory. Anyone who lacks consideration for others and is concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure is selfish. This is certainly the case for women who get abortions past their first trimester, because by doing this they show a blatant disregard for the well being of the unborn baby they have in their womb. This is different from women who use birth control or get the abortion they may need in the first trimester. The reason that poor women who get abortions past their first trimester are not selfish is because they may not have the resources to get one before the second or (hopefully not) the third trimester. This is not the case for rich or middle class women who almost always have the ability to get the procedure done by the end of the first trimester. Also, rich and middle class women have more access to birth control such as condoms and pills than poor women do. Please understand that I recognize that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances, such as heath concerns. However, these are the VAST minority of abortions (only 12%). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: BoP is shared. I forgot to put this in the rules, but this is pretty standard for most debates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source for heath related abortions: http://www.lifenews.com...
Confederate History Month should be taught in schools that want to celebrate it

The Northern States did not support it, and slavery was banned because of the North (I do know that some slave states supported the North though).The Confederacy practiced slavery, this is the main reason why the South attempted to break away, States like Delaware didn't abolish slavery or didn't even think of secession into the CSA. Delaware was full of abolish but wouldn't abolish it. First of all how is celebrating a sinful nation supposed to do anything. We CANNOT celebrate sinful things like SLAVERY. Its funny how you are saying we fought over slavery when your sources that you gave me on Civil War myths stated that it was not and fought over saving the Union. The Nazis were full of hate as the Confederacy fought to have a nation of their own rights. The Confederacy couldn't do anything major. It only lasted 5 years! The South let Native Americans fight for their army without any reason. Sources http://www.livescience.com...
Confederate History Month should be taught in schools that want to celebrate it

Thanks for accepting. Also schools are not supposed to celebrate wrong things. First of all the Confederacy wasn't wrong it was states' rights and it ment the right of less govermment. Also the United States kept slaves too. But if Also learn about the past we won't repeat it, If every school in America oberved Confederate History Month we could save the future from wars that could spike up. We could find ways to solve problems before we go to war and kill another 600,000 inocent men. If students already know about the confederacy why should schools have to teach it. I am a student that is accully learning about the Civil War right now and they know nothing, the teachers learn it wrong then the kids learn it from the history. We should have a month that we could bring in a SCV or a Confederate renacotor for them to teach the kids Confedeate History the right way. Also we cannot forget about the Black people of this country. The Confederate States of America freed her slaves in 1863 to let them fight in the army, three years before the United States. So all races can relate or trace their history back to the Confederacy. http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net... http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net...
Confederate History Month should be taught in schools that want to celebrate it

Confederate History Month would be a waste of time at schools. The topic of the confederacy is covered during American History. There is no reason why teachers should have to change the curriculum just to do some extra teaching on the confederacy. If students already know about the confederacy why should schools have to teach it. Also what is the point of making space for teaching about the confederacy? If a school wanted to do confederate history month, then they would have to make space in school hours which would force students to lose something. Celebrate:to observe (a day) or commemorate (an event) with ceremonies or festivities Also schools are not supposed to celebrate wrong things. If they were to celebrate Confederate History month this would promote slavery. People only celebrate great things like the Fourth of July, not slavery. Promoting Confederate History Month will make slavery look like it was a good thing to kids. Because many kids are influenced at school, celebrating Confederate History Month would make kids think slavery was a good thing. Also we cannot forget about the Black people of this country. Southerns did barbaric things to them. To celebrate the Confederacy would be like celebrating the Nazis. The wanted to split from the North because they thought they would lose their slaves. Sources: http://www.education.com... http://www.educativ.info... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Roger Federer is not the best Tennisplayer ever.

Here are a couple of additional reasons why Federer isn't the best tennisplayer ever: Roger Federer is a late bloomer. At the age of 20 he had not won a any singles title, let alone a Grand Slam. While players at the same age, like Safin or Hewitt, were already very successful in Slams, he couldn't even get into a quarter final. In 2000 the courts hadn't been slowed down and the balls were still quite light. So physically it was much easier to be at the top level than it is in today's game. It could be that his serve&volley game just wasn't nearly as good as his baseline game. This suggests that he benefited greatly from the slowing of the courts since 2001.(after all he won 16 of his 17slams on slowed courts; Rafa only 4 of 12) Federer also has a negative H2H record against now 16 players.(Rafa only 8) 8 of those players have played Federer at least 3 times and still have a positive record against him.(only 2 players against Rafa) 2 players stand out. Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray. Both beat Federer even in his best year(2006). Nadal owns a 20:10 record over Federer. With a 8:2 record in Grand Slams.(!) Murray leads 11:9., leading on hardcourt and grass courts being a tie.
Roger Federer is not the best Tennisplayer ever.

1. If you agree with my statement then why did you join the debate? After all it's about the statement "Roger Federer is not the best Tennisplayer ever". A debate is supposed to be between two sides of opposing view. You wasted someone's opportunity to actually give useful counter arguments to my statement. Well done! 2. In what way does Djokovic have a better record than Rafa? Djokovic at 26 vs Rafa at 26(pre 2013): Grand Slams: 6titles; 11finals; 35appearances(no French Open victory) vs 11titles; 16finals; 33appearances(won all 4 Slams) Masters 1000: 14titles; 24finals vs 21titles; 31finals WTF: 2titles vs 1final(worst surface possible for Nadal) Olympics: bronze medal vs gold medal Davis Cup: 1title vs 4titles weeks at No.1: 91+ vs 102 Nadal also leads in H2H 20:15: Clay: Nadal leads 13:3 Hard: Djokovic leads 11:5 Grass: Nadal leads 2:1 In Grand Slams: Nadal leads 7:3 Aside from 2011 Nadal has always been the guy to root for in important matches. And Nadal has a better win/loss percentage overall, outdoors, on clay, on grass, in Grand Slams, in Masters 1000 and against the top 10. (source: ATP reliability zone) Djokovic is generally the better player on hard courts. Nadal is generally the better player on clay and grass. And he was the better hard court player in 2009(winning the Australian Open and Indian Wells) and 2010(winning the US Open). I have no idea how someone can be under the massive delusion that Novak Djokovic is a better player than Nadal, Federer, Sampras , Agassi or Borg. He still has to prove himself by winning Grand Slams.(especially the French open) I'm not saying that he can't do it, but to say that he is already the best is just premature. He would need to have at leas 10 Grand Slam titles under his belt to even be in the discussion of "who is the best ever". And he can't end his career having a negative record against Nadal(15:20) and Federer(13:16). Until then all of your assumptions are pointless. None of my point have been refuted yet.
Killing puppies is justifiable

You failed to designate whether or not your argument was one derived from morality or from a pragmatic basis. I, however, did so this discussion has to inevitably focus on it. We should doubt the existence of moral facts is because there is currently no good reason for believing in the existence of these awkward, universally prescriptive facts exist. Moral values are aspects OF OUR PERCEPTIONS of the world, not aspects INHERENT TO the world.
Killing puppies is justifiable

This is not a joke debate at all, I just know how you "online debaters" work. You out-write your opponent, rather than out-debate him. And furthermore, I am looking for something more rewarding than typical debate, so I think of this as an extended cross examination. I did not include morality in my claim because.. well.. I wished to stray from it. Justification does not necessitate a moral requirement. Killing puppies has no negative bearing on humanity, and is thus just.
Killing puppies is justifiable

For something to be justified, one must "prove or show [it] to be just, right, or reasonable[1]", in which this case we would be referring to just (namely that it is morally justifiable for killing puppies). My main argument is that it's not justifiable because there is no such thing as "morally just" - in essence, I argue that moral facts do not exist. ---References--- 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gun Control

My opponent does not seen to understand that a tazer will be as effective. It would leave the person in a state of great pain and will make them feel like they can't move. This gives enough time to call the cops or to disarm the criminal. For every one hundred Americans there are eighty six guns for them. Thats a lot of people walking around with guns, that increases the like hood an accident from happening. Also my opponent agreed with the point about accidents by stating his cousin's story. His cousin is lucky that the round didn't hit him in the head. Also his cousin would have to pay for the gunshot wound. My opponent also didn't counter any of my points of the early rounds.
Gun Control

im just gonna say a couple more things. #1. i live in a redneck community were hunting is the most important thing to people here other than their family which brings me to my second point. if someone came into my house with the intent to take/damage my property or family, i have the legal right to do anything necessary to defend my self, family and property. and if someone dose that have that intent i will give them whats coming to them. a .44 is gonna be way more effective than a tazer. and not every American family owns guns because if that were the case this wouldnt even be an issue. i have a cousin who dropped his .22 and accidentally shot him self in the sholder; a month later he went and shot 6 point buck.
Gun Control

There is proof gun bans do work. In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10.2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims in the U.S.A, whereas in the UK that figure was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people. There is absolutely no reason for guns to be banned.
Gun Control

This is not true. Most people don't carry guns around in public. There are police for a reason. Also most burglars don't bring a gun with them during a break in, they normally enter when there is no one in the house. A tazer is fine for self defense, and would allow home owners to defend themselves without bloodshed. Also a gun ban would help police in hunting criminals, the police can simpily look for people carrying guns. Even though most Americans own a gun, America has one of the highest crime rates in the world, if not the highest. Also because almost every American family has a gun, accidental shooting can occur, with curious kids. Also there always has to be that one person who legally obtains the gun to sell on the black market.
Gun Control

Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.
Gun Control

Another reason guns should be banned is because firearms are in the top three things that cause deaths among young people. Almost every American owns a firearm, which makes them extremely easy to obtain. A kid can easily obtain a gun and walk out into public. In Canada the National Public Services Research Institution found that the yearly cost related to gunshot wounds were about $6.6 billion. Also with gun control, gangs could get military grade weapons, this would cause the police to lose the advantage they have over gangs in firepower, this would cause a rise in deaths in the gang war, because the gangs can shoot at police officers with military grade weaponry. Removing gun bans is a very bad idea.
Gun Control

It is true that the second amendment states that Americans have the right to bear arms, but the creators of the constitution didn't know that one day the we would have tanks. As weaponry evolves we need to put more limits on it, we don't want people walking around with mini guns. Also I would like to point out that most shootings that occur today are done with legal guns. The point of the second amendments was to protect citizens from the government, not to give citizens a way to walk out and shoot twenty people. Also I would like to point out again that the creators of the constitution seem not to have thought that guns would evolve from muskets. In the 18th a man might be able to shot one person in public, not today though.
Gun Control

The second amendment was created for a reason. To protect the American people; specifically against rouge governments. Obama wants to inflict fire arms confiscation to lower the crime rate in the country. He is acting as though criminals follow laws. If the people of America want guns, the people of America will get guns; even on the black market if needs be. I live in a hunting, redneck, I-like-big-explosion-and-fire type of community and if the government comes to our doorstep for the purpose of confiscating our guns the two things we will be ready to greet them with is a copy of the second amendment and a 12 gauge shot gun and if the first one doesn't get them off our property then the other will.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Since my opponent forfeited, I have noting else to say but to ask for your vote on the ground that: 1.i HAVE PROVEN THAT MY OPPONENT HAS NOT WITHHELD HIS POSITION. 2. I HAVE UPHELD AND LINKED MY VALUE 3. i REMAINED ACTIVE IN THIS ROUND. 4.I ARGUED ON ALL MY OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS, HOWEVER MY OPPONENT DID NOT TOUCH MY QUANTIFICATION AS WELL AS COMPETITION ARGUMENT. 5. My opponent did not address my incentive argument. Thank you.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Thanks to all who continue to read, judge, and debate.Advice for opponent: 1) If you reference my rebuttal by stating "RC1" or "RC2" instead of posting the entire rebuttal, you would not encounter the difficulties of space limitation. 2) Define your value and value criterion. Simply mistating them, omitting a value, and not describing them is not enough. One must define and have a value (LD debate does not typically accept Kritiks); one must also define the particular theory of a philosopher if one so choses to use it as a value criterion. Signposting:I will begin by upholding my own case;I will then move on to clash with my opponent's case.Uphold --Case. My opponent has not clashed with my value, value criterion, contentions, reasoning, or introduction. Rendering upholding my own case unnecessary. But, I will assert that my value of Morality is superior to his unknown value, or the value I assumed he was using: will to power. My value criterion of moral responsibility is superior to his value criterion of Neitzschean theory, because I at least described mine. He has yet to indicate which Neitzschean theory he is using. Throughout my contentions, which link directly to my value of morality through my concrete value criterion of moral responsibility, I have demonstrated that individuals have a moral responsibility to assist people in need.--Rebuttal. He has responded to my RC1 and RC2 though. In his response to my RC1 insinuation that the world would be better if we prevented callous suffering, he reiterates that denying people suffering people the suffering that would make them stronger is wrong. At this point, that assertion has been proven to be a baseless claim. Cross-apply my RC1. In his response to my RC2 he states that "the only way to overcome suffering is by embracing it." Cross apply my RC2 here with the examples I gave as justificiation.ClashMy opponent's case has already been clashed with and my arguments still stand.Thank you.
Socialism will bring about a more just society

You are thinking of communism." Communism is indeed a more extreme version of socialism. Socialism doesn't discourage work directly. It pays according to effort but through wealth distribution, the same money that the harder workers earned, is given to those making their way by. Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." This being said, a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. Socialism discourages working harder and getting a higher education because the unproductive are guaranteed a living minimum. "Domestic competition will be totally eradicated." Without competition our society is incapable of moving forward. Competition is what drives an economy and makes it prosperous. There will be an absence of innovation due to the lack of competition and opportunity. In a worse case, innovation and change would be stifled and in the best case, it would be slow in coming. In addition to the economy, every aspect of the economy would be determined by the government. In a socialist economy, everything is controlled by a centralized body. The economic components and all enterprise belongs to the state. Because much of the economy is controlled by the state, the ability for an individual to break out and pursue aspirations and dreams is signficantly reduced. This is akin to holding a race where the goal is just to finish; no one strives to win. The former USSR was a socialist society and their lack of enthusiasm resulted in a nation that could barely provide a loaf of bread to their society. Although the former USSR was known for producing mass quantities of products, the quality of those products was of poor quality. Not until the fall of the USSR and the change in economic systems did they really produce "world-class" products. Much of this can be traced directly to the change in economic strategies.