BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

I never said that abortion should fix the big problems I have mentioned. What I was trying to say was that if you outlawed abortion in one of the biggest countries in the world, you would be making the problems caused by over population much worse. So why dig deeper in a deep hole? Why add insult to injury? Why make a big problem bigger? I think it would be immoral and irresponsible of the government to outlaw abortion because of this reason. One reason which I haven't mentioned is medical. If there is a situation when a mother isn't healthy enough to give birth then she should have the right to have an abortion. I believe this is yet another reason why outlawing abortion would be immoral and irrisponsible of the government. The issues of Global Warming, and World Poverty are moral issues. They both CAN be solved. However World Poverty is an issue that is partially caused by over population. It is harder to reduce our carbon footprint since we are becoming overly populated. Out lawing abortion will make the issue of overpopulation much worse. My opponent thinks that my logic sucks just because part of my argument is that the life will probably be miserable. That doesn't mean it sucks, that just means we disagree which is obviosly true considering that this debate is taking place between us. To start, not all people who adopt children are good people. Secondly this is not the alternative many people choose. Thirdly, a common alternative other people do choose, is to give the child to an orphanage. Orphanages aren't nice places for kids. Even worse are often, foster homes. It is still fair to assert that the life will likely be miserable. "Killing a baby because it's life is gonna suck is euthanizing. " Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of euthanize: to subject to euthanasia. Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of euthanasia: Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding medical measures from a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painfull disease or condition. Euthanizing is, as Webster's put it, 'for a person or animal suffering from an incurable, painfull disease or condition. ' Not for a Fetus who is not suffering from an incurable, painfull disease or condition. Once again my opponent made a false point. What I ment by " not human " was that a Fetus doesn't breathe, is not aware it's alive, and is still devoloping it's body parts. It has no idea it will be a baby. When my opponent says "killing babies" he forgets that it is killing embryos and fetuses. What is more likely is that he is stretching the facts.
There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

My points are very much NOT invalid First, embryos ARE human. Scientifically speaking, a human can best be defined as a member of the genus "Homo" and the species "Sapien". That is a scientific fact. Scientifically speaking, A species is determined by its genetic make-up. Its DNA "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." -http://en.wikipedia.org...... As stated by the definition, DNA is a more precise way to define a species. Finally, A fetus is, in fact, human because it is a member of the genus Homo and the Species, Sapien. So, scientifically, a fetus is human as long as it is alive. Second, your logic sucks. "This baby's life is gunna suck so lets just kill it!" Thats exactly what you are saying without all of the political fluff. Thats not okay. The baby has just as much of a chance at having a great life. Even if the cards aren't all on the table there are other options. There is adoption and living with relatives. If the child cant live a comfortable life with the parents then he shouldn't live with the parents, not not live at all. They should live with someone other than the parents. Killing a baby because its life is going to suck is euthanizing. That, is illegal. Lastly, all of the consequences are inevitable!! Why would we end human lives to "fix" a problem that cant actually be fixed. We would have to kill off every baby other baby that is born to have even a small chance at avoiding overpopulation. These are problems that need to be fixed in other ways. Killing off our children is not the answer. It is barbaric and primitive answer to the problem. Most of all it is beneath us as sentient and empathetic beings. That is exactly why Pro-Life is the moral side. Because it protects the sanctity of human life.
There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

There are two main points in my opponents argument I will rebut. "of innocent human beings being slaughtered at the convenience of others." -First of all embryos aren't human beings. -Second of all it isn't just at the convenience of others. In most cases, as I said in my first argument, it is in the "human's" best interest to be aborted, when one considers poverty,and an unstable home of being an unwanted child. That's what makes my opponenants first point invalid. "The protection of human life will 'allways' outweigh the 'small' undesireable consequences." First of all not all the consequences are not 'small.' Issues of world poverty, and global warming being caused by our rapidly growing population are not small, they're some of the biggest consequenses of over population, which would be obviosly much worse if abortion was made illegal. Second of all I believe these 'consequenses' heavily outweigh the protection of human life. As I said earlier, for these reasons, and a few others I mentioned, it would be highly unethical, and irrisponsible of the government, to make abortion illegal.
There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

My agrument is simple and short. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Murder is ALWAYS bad and SUPER immoral. Sure there are certain consequences to holding a pro-life viewpoint, but those who hold a pro-life viewpoint are protecting the lives of innocent human beings being slaughtered for the convenience of others. The protection of human life will ALWAYS outway the small undesirable consequences. My point is this: Because the Pro-Life movement is out to protect the sanctity of human life, it is a completely Moral standpoint. It is out to protect human life and that easily outways any undesirable consequences.
There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

The "Right to Life" movement claims to be the moral side of the abortion issue, but there are things which are highly immoral about making it illegal to perform an abortion. First of all, it is very likely that this child will be unwanted, and unwanted children aren't going to be treated well. It is also likely that this child will be brought up in poverty, either in an orphanage, or in a poor household. It is fair to assert therefore that there is a high probability that this child will grow up in misery. It is therefore immoral,and irresponsible for the government to make it illegal to prevent such a tragic situation. It would also be difficult for the parrents who planed the abortion,and so outlawing an abbortion will make it painfull for the parrents and children alike. The population of the Planet is growing at a very rapid rate. Before World War Two the population of Earth was at about two billion people. Now the population of Earth is at about six billion people. That means that over the thousands of years we've been on this planet, mankind has multiplied to two billion people, and over the past sixty years our population has increased by four billion people. Our growing population is troubling for a few reasons. One is that there is less food and water to go around for everyone,creating problems of poverty. Another reason is that the more people there are, the more people pollute and therefore the more contributers to CLIMATE CHANGE. I am not saying that abbortion is the solution to this problem. However, outlawing abbortion will make this economical\ecological issue much worse. This is a reason which, in my opinion makes it even more immoral to outlaw abbortion then the first one I used.
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

==Refuting the Affirmative Case== My opponent has conceded that independent agencies are capable of producing propaganda outside of government control, and so my objection regarding the potential overthrow of the government is conceded. My opponent also concedes that the large majority of Americans are not in a state of fear. He mostly attacks the exception regarding plains, which, as I have already pointed out, is minuscule and largely irrelevant. Americans are, quite simply, not living in a state of fear, and their government is entirely stable. My opponent is also trying to argue that the airline industry is safer because of fear of terrorists. This is not the case. The fear itself is not the cause of the safety; the careful inspection of passengers allows the safety Americans enjoy. My opponent asks if we should stop airport security. This is a straw-man claim, and, quite frankly, absurd. Americans are not afraid of flying in airplanes, and the government doesn't hijack planes or spread propaganda to make us afraid. Further, it is not even necessary for Americans to be afraid of airplanes in order for airport security to be successful. My opponent has only attacked the airplane industry, and in doing this, has conceded: -Governments that make the citizenry live in fear are best overthrown. -"Steps to enforce rule" are not necessary in a non-corrupt government. -It is plausible for governments to be promoted without manufacturing fear. So, the resolution, that "It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear", is negated, on bluntness, in-necessity, and immorality. It fails at its purpose. Both the people and the government are better off without such a policy. The resolution is negated.
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

Refuting the Refute 1. I'd like to point out here that my opponent has agreed to my example of a justifiable fear of terrorism on planes which I will address later. 2. We are not debating is fear immoral; we are debating fear used by the government. The Daisy Ad was by an independent party and thus the government is not enforcing a state of fear. My opponent is arguing about propaganda agencies, however if they are enforcing their own fear then it is not the government deciding to keep its citizens in a state of fear; it is the independent agency; thus this is off topic. If the government agrees with the agency then obviously they are the ones in control of power because they are still the making rational choices and thus the government still has complete control. My opponent is arguing that the U. S. has stayed in power without utilizing a fear, however he agrees to the justification that their is a fear of terrorism on planes (first paragraph R2) thus he is contradicting himself here. The airport security system is enforced by multiple governments in the world and thus we accept that their is a fear of terror threats on a plane. We are not debating here the level of "fear" or the level of threat. I only have to prove that their is a fear imposed that led to good results. My opponent admits their is a fear of danger on planes and thus he has basically admitted that their is a justifiable reason that the government can keep its citizens in a state of fear; because they want to enforce airplane security. Further more; should we stop airport security because we have no proof as of now somebody might have a bomb on a plane? The chief reason for voting for the Pro is that: My first contention stands strong because my opponent has not proved that their is any other faction that the people may turn too that does not have government ties. Also, a real world application of the resolution has been justified
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

=Rebuttals= My opponent has pointed to the United States as a counter-example to my rebuttal; however, the large majority of Americans are not in danger of a foreign entity (except on airplanes, but that danger is minuscule). The United States has a secure population and is not a valid counter-example. . http://www.youtube.com... The Internal Rebellion Faction is not required to have government ties. A monopoly on power and media is not necessary to exaggerate a danger. Danger has been exaggerated by all sorts of propaganda agencies, such as the Daisy Girl ad seen above, without such a monopoly. There is no reason to believe that no organization would be able to rise up with fear mongering and then use its power to take charge. The community argument relies thoroughly on the rebuttal of my objection, and so it shall be considered only in application. ==The Negative Case== A government that sacrifices its purpose for its position is no better than a lying politician. The "steps to enforce its rule" are unnecessary unless a government is abusive. The United States, for example, has stayed in power for hundreds of years without manufacturing a non-existent foreign enemy. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, needed to create an enemy, the Jews, to justify its misbehaviour. The United States is not an anarchy, and so my opponent's rebuttal to my case is moot. My opponent asks for an example of a righteous government tool for staying in power. Examples include the promotion of the system of checks and balances system (in the public school system) and the election system. My opponent also clarifies that the fear doesn't have to be of a non-existent entity, but my objections are still valid, as the resolution implies with the word "keep" that action would ensue with or without the existence of a true threat. This implies over-exaggeration and falsification. I now yield to PRO.
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

Thank you for the warm welcome. =] _Refuting the Refutes_ My opponent states that their is no way to guarantee that the entity will be a government that people will turn too. He points out religion as another possible alternative. In the United States the majority of the population still self-identify as Christians, however we are a very stable nation (Failed State Index 2009). Thus we have religion incorporated into our society in a peaceful way and yet we do not have revolt against our government. Further more whatever faction people may turn too would probably in one way or another have some form of government ties, and even if it didn't this does not mean that a government would be un-able to find a means to gain either control or an influence in this faction. In order for a government to enforce a universal state of fear of a FOREIGN entity then it is to be presumed it must have a monopoly on power/media. Thus it's not unlikely that any faction could not in same way have power or influence by the gov. Because his argument has been refuted my community argument stands strong. (Round 1) Refuting his case_ Staying in power must be the goal of a government, because if they lose their power they are no longer able to rule over a sovereign people. My opponent says it is justified to replace a corrupt gov. with a more righteous one, however if the government is not going to take steps to enforce its rule it is basically a puppet government with no sovereign power and thus we are just in a state of anarchy or a state of easy government abuse. Further more a phobia doesn't necessarily have to be false, their can be rational phobias, used by the state to get concessions. (Ex: Airport security to prevent terror attacks). My opponent constantly states that their are better ways, however he does not offer one alternative. Thus my case stands strong because my opponent claims fear is ineffective, but he offers no alternative and he has been refuted.
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

org. I negate, that "It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear". ==REBUTTALS== --Loyalty-- When people have a fear, they become dependent on a higher entity. There is no way to guarantee that entity will be government. In fact, they probably will not. Fear, as an irrational actor, also can make people irrational. More people than not will turn to religion (or another promising faction) instead of government because religion can promise the same protection, and (assuming that the fear is generated by a facade) have the same effect. Religion can use propaganda in the same way as the government, and can use public fear to gain power. Religion can then be used to motivate a force to overthrow the government, so that the religious leaders can gain power. --Community-- In the same manner as stated above, community can be used against government as a tool of other agencies. --Conclusion-- A government interested in staying in power takes a huge risk of relacement by creating fear. ==The Negative Case== Staying in power should not be the goal of government action. Even if manufacturing an external evil kept a government in control, is the government in control worth having? It is corrupt in that it has deliberately falsified information. It is abusive in that it has used unnecessary violence. It has become destructive to its own purpose, to protect individual rights. Such a government is best overthrown and replaced with a more righteous one. Loyalty can be better achieved through non-corrupt means. Efficiency and righteous action can keep a people's faith in their government. Patriotism can be manufactured through propaganda that does not consist of lies. ==Conclusion== Fear (as defined before) is a blunt, ineffective, immoral, and unnecessary tool for an ideal society. I now yield to the affirmative.
It's better for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear.

Hello People, I am arguing for the justification that a government has more to benefit from keeping its citizens in a state of fear. By state of fear it is to be meant a state in which the citizens have a phobia of some foreign entity that would be promoted either through force or propaganda by a sovereign body. My contentions for this are as follows: C1: It ensures loyalty. When people have a fear of something they are more likely to put their protection to a higher power and in this case the government would have the loyalty of its people, because they would rely on their government in a mutual trust that they would be protected by the government in exchange for loyalty. Thus by keeping its citizens in a state of fear you prevent disloyalty and raging anarchy which would just lead to the loss of human life and human character; again accomplishing this because people have a need for a higher protective force, the government. They would rather accept the protection and show loyalty too the government, than risk being harmed or damaged by the foreign entity. C2: It promotes relationships at the community level. When people are threatened they have a tendency to rely on each other and when they have a fear of a foreign force they are more likely to group together in a close community bond. An example of this would be when a registered sex predator moves into a neighborhood and the neighborhood watch tightens their look out on him/her to ensure the safety of the neighborhood. When people are in a fear they have to work in a community setting together rather than all work for their own individual interests. This leads the communities to grow new bonds and to strengthen their inner character to ensure the protection of all to the foreign entity. In conclusion, it's justified for a government to keep its citizens in a state of fear, because people bond and show loyalty to ensure their individual rights are protected thus they grow together.
US aiding Mexico in Drug war

My opponent has taken the position that the United states should be more involved in the drug war; I'd ask that he clarify what exactly the objective of increased American effort would be. I believe that my opponent's position is basically increasing the US effort in Mexico would prevent the drugs from reaching the US and therefore win the war on drugs, but I'm not totally sure so he should clarify. His responsibility will be to defend that statement and I believe that he should have the burden of proof as he is the instigator who is making the claim (if my understanding of his position is correct). If he fails to convincingly justify his position then I will have won. My responsibility will be to defend the maintenance of the current level of involvement or reduction of American involvement in Mexico, or to generally show that increased involvement would be bad for the US/Mexico and would fail to fulfill whatever objective my opponent claims it will accomplish. I do not believe that I necessarily have to do anything beyond show that the US should not increase their efforts in the drug war. If I fail to convincingly justify my position then he will have won. I think Round 2 should be for arguments, Rounds 3 and 4 can be for rebuttal and Round 5 can be wrap up. If my opponent is willing to agree to that set up (it's really up to him but he didn't really define a set up so I dont see why he'd object) than we can get this thing started. I wish my opponent good luck and I'd ask that if I am doing this wrong someone please comment and tell me. Cheers.
Public school is better for developing life skills than Home Schooling

Be nice since I'm still new to this =P. Thanks for acccepting To be clear, I have stated "homeschool" is worse than "public school." You have posted that public school in America is worse than private schools, which would be correct IF the debate was on private VS public. But private is different than home schooling. Definition of a private school: Private schools United States as corporate entities separate from public schools, which are supported by the government. They are ordinarily under the immediate control of a private corporation , not of a government agency or board; and they are supported primarily by private funds. http://education.stateuniversity.com... Definition of home school: A home school is a school in which parents teach their children an academic curriculum at home instead of sending them out to a public or private school. Home schooling is legally accepted in all 50 states of the U.S., but each state has its own laws that a family must adhere to. http://whatis.techtarget.com... Now, for my argument =) Public School Pros of Public School: Learning within a group setting Extra-curricular activity availability More curriculum opportunities Diverse social education Now let's look at the pros of home schooling. Pros of Home School: Free to choose curriculum Free to choose schedule Small teacher to student ratio Teaches students to be independent in their learning choices True, you are free to choose the curriculum taught to your child, BUT the same CORE curriculum is taught whether it be home school or public school. Still being free to choose your schedule doesn't really mean anything since the parent will still set a schedule for the child, just with different hours. If you have the right teachers teaching you, then public school could be better for the child. What if the parent doesn't know English that well? How can they give the child the proper education in English if they themselves do not know it very well? Also, Public schools foster cultural literacy and pass on traditions. Many parents are not even qualified to teach there children at home depending on what state you live in. Also, being in public school helps a child learn what pure-pressure and how to handle it. I will agree home school can be more educational, BUT does harm by sheltering the child and not letting them experience what real life is =) Be gentle on the return XD