BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Legality of Abortions

Well even if you forfeited the 2nd round I'm glad that you at least responded in the 3rd round, well I shall adress what you said in response to my opening argument. 1 and 2. Basically I'll adress both your answer to the first and second part of my argument since this applies to both. It feels like you didn't read through the first part of my argument very carefully. I spent pretty much that entire part of my argument going over why a fetus in the stage an abortion is done, can't be considered a human being, like I said a fetus in that stage is not conscious and is not able to feel anything and it is not even aware it is alive in the first place. It pretty much lacks what makes a human, "human" and while it starts to develop these things later in the pregnancy it does not have them in that stage and would have no chance surviving outside the uterus. Therefore cannot be considered human in the same way a fully born baby can be. Therefore the woman carrying the fetus should have the right to decide wheter she wants to have an abortion or not, since she is an actual born human being who is able to think and feel and it regards her own body and well being, What you did was basically to just assume my argument of why it can't be considered human wrong and then go on to say "you can't kill it since it's a human being" without providing any reason for what makes it human in the same way you and me are in the first place. 3. I feel like yet again you didn't read through the entirety of my argument. But regardless applying what I said earlier, that also means the woman should have the right to decide. Even so the woman if she really wants to have an abortion will have it done illegally and it will probably less safe in the process. Which means she risk severly damaging not only herself but also the fetus. And you haven't adressed the 4th part of my argument either. Even so in the case that we did outlaw abortions everywhere does that mean rape victims also shouldn't be able to have them? They didn't chose to be pregnant, should they be punished for being raped? Question to my opponent: Would you like that your parents having you, they decide to abort you, so you would have never been born, and would not be debating here, right now with me? The obvious answer since I'm an alive human being who quite likes being alive is no, but if I was only a fetus I wouldn't even be aware that I was alive in the first place nor would I feel any pain from being aborted since I would be unable to feel, so I don't think really think I'd mind it or want it for that matter because to put it simply I wouldn't even be able to form those simple thoughts in the first place. I suggest you read through the entirety of my opening arguments again. Counter question: Do you also consider a cluster of cells (in other words an embryo) a human being in the same a baby is? Well I wish I'd have another round to adress your answer but since this is the last round I guess this will be my closing words.
The Legality of Abortions

The Legality of Abortions, I am very surprised that my opponent thinks that Abortions should be legal. I will correct some of his facts in his past argument. 1. Women don't have the right to decide for Abortion. *In the Declaration of Independence which was written in 1776, also included a very important Declaration, which was the Declaration of Human rights. About 150 years later, the United Nations, made a new document of the Declaration of Human rights in 1948. There were 5 Human rights written clearly. The first one was very clear, which said: "Right to life and to physical integrity". This means that each human, regardless their qualities, or if the parents don't want him, has the right to live, and be treated like everyone else. 2. Yes, you are killing someone. *As said in my past fact, all human being has the right to live, regardless of anything. It is also illegal because you are killing your own child which is same as homicide. So, you are basically causing homicide, with homicide is indeed illegal. Abortion is a sin, and you my opponent should realize that. 3. Just because its illegal, it doesn't mean people should stop having them. *This is true, but to what extent? If a person wishes to have sexual actions with someone else, its his decision. That person is aware that, that person will most probably have a child, but still he wants to do it. So, to this, if that person does have a child, he has no choice but to stay with him, regardless if that person loves it or not. Question to my opponent: *Would you like that your parents having you, they decide to abort you, so you would have never been born, and would not be debating here, right now with me?
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

con said i value the rights of the fetus above the mother. then he denied he said it. however, he said in the first post. "Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim" maybe he was being sloppy, but he said it. i dont know what the point was in his 'declaration of rights' etc etc was if he wasn't trying to rebut statement that i was being aboslute about it. con says i 'conceded' sometimes the mother's rights are not as valued, but i never contested it to begin with. maybe bad wording on con's part again, but if you take him at precisely what he says, he's all over the place. con doesn't finish his analogy about a tree. im not sure what it was suppose to say. con merely distinguishes my analogy that the fetus doesn't now if it wants to live or die. however, we can assume that like a tree exists, and lives, it doesn't want to die. or many animals who don't have higher functiing capacity. by living, they are expressing an inherent desire to stay that way. and, it's implied that living things don't want to die. con says i dont have to talk about abortion cause we are talking about rights in general. we've been talking about abortion all along, though, and it is what i mentioned in my openiing statement. it's some sort of twisted footwork to say otherwise. con says 'all humans have the same rights'. but it's again a play on words, as if we value one person more than the other. the point is the mother won't always get what she wants. like if you cant smoke in public, it could be said that the public's right trumps yours. but then again, everyone has the same right so you could quibble about saying it that way. con is engaging in semantics to do that stort of argument. the fetus must be considered a human later in pregnancy. how is it a human a few seconds out but not a few seconds in? anything else is meaningless technicalities and boundaries. con has the burden to show how it isn't a human then. if it is a human, sometimes the mother won't get what she wants all the time. that doesn mean all humans dont have the same rights etc...., again this arguemtnation is ridiculous footwork that means nothing to the points at hand.
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

Rebuttals:"con says i value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. this is not true. i sometimes do, as is clearly stated in the thesis of the debate."-This is not true, I've said nothing of the kind. I was merely addressing the resolution at hand: "The rights of the infant of the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother."-Pro has conceded that in sometimes she does value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. "con says my analogy isn't sufficient. he says the victim in the accident would immediately want separated in my anaolgy. not always, though. if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for a number of months, any reasonable person would say the person that caused the accident must permit that. no one would say the pesron that caused the accident can kill the person she caused to be attached to her."-This is still a poor analogy. -Using this exact same analogy, I'll use a real life example. Recently while hiking in the mountains, I passed a tree and -Furthermore, Pro is assuming that the victim is conscious and can make decisions on whether or not it wants to live. If this analogy were to happen to a human, the victim would certainly not want to get killed, because the victim loves his life and doesn't want it to end and can think properly and make decisions. A fetus in a womb cannot make decisions (likely because its brain is not fully developed) and has not experienced life, therefore it can't decide whether it wants to live or die. It doesn't know if living is good or dying is good."con points out rape etc. i could see making an exception for that maybe." -Pro has conceded to my contention."i'm arguing about later abortions,"-No you aren't. Your resolution has little to do with abortions. Your resolution concerns with the rights of a fetus and a woman. -You're resolution is: "the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother"-And I am arguing that all humans have the same rights. We don't even have to be talking about abortions right now. We are talking about rights. That is the topic.Addendum: -I believe to continue on with the debate, we must establish what the rights of a fetus is in the first place compared with the rights of a woman.-But to determine the rights of a fetus, we must establish whether or not a fetus should be considered human.-The woman, is certainly considered human, therefore no matter what, she at least has the 30 basic Human Rights. [1] -I leave it to you to prove whether or not a fetus should be considered human in this debate. If you don't, then you concede that the fetus has less rights than the woman. If you do, then it will be established that the fetus is a human, but according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], all humans have equal rights, therefore as a human, the fetus' rights do not trump the woman's rights.-Your burden of proof is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Sources:[1] http://www.samaritanmag.com...;[2] http://www.un.org...
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

con says i value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. this is not true. i sometimes do, as is clearly stated in the thesis of the debate. even then, it's just a matter of speaking as to whether the rights are valued 'above' them, it just emans sometimes the mother does not get what she wants. con says my analogy isn't sufficient. he says the victim in the accident would immediately want separated in my anaolgy. not always, though. if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for a number of months, any reasonable person would say the person that caused the accident must permit that. no one would say the pesron that caused the accident can kill the person she caused to be attached to her. con points out rape etc. i could see making an exception for that maybe. i did state she needed very signiricant emotional problems. but anyways the problem is that i'm arguing about later abortions, and the woman has a responsibility to abort when it's morally grayer, sooner rather than later. she begins to lose her rights. i wont contest the rape point. note, i did make exceptions for the mother's health. con says i 'conceded that during hte beginning of the pregnancy' an infant has less rights. i never said otherwise. i in fact stated otherwise.
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

Burden of proof is on Pro. Beginning Argument:-Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim. It has been well established throughout history in many nations that all humans have equal rights, excluding criminals who have been proven guitly and punished. Essentially, no one is valued above another. This is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]. -Therefore, Pro's obligation in this debate is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a fraction of Pro's burden of proof. Rebuttal:"If you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking. .. a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. "-This is a fallacious analogy. If I caused an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to my body, a reasonable person would demand that I, the one causing the accident, must be separated from the victim immediately, and the victim would agree because the victim doesn't like me because I caused an accident that made him or her a victim. -Furthermore, Pro is comparing a fetus to a victim in this analogy. This is not always the case. If a woman was raped for example, and she got pregnant, then she is clearly the victim. "that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. "-Pro has contradicted herself. If it is "topped off" with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate before, then Pro has conceded that during the beginning of pregnancy, an infant has less rights than the mother. "if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. "-Pro has conceded that it is alright to abort in certain cases. "the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply. "-What if she was raped to pregnancy? She did not "assume" any risk at all. She never meant for it to happen, and she could do nothing. Certainly, then, it would be justified? Sources:[1] . http://www.un.org...
Red light cameras are used primarily for gaining revenue and do not make the roads significantly saf

Red light cameras are used primarily for gaining revenue and do not make the roads significantly safer. Red light camera- cameras mounted by or on traffic lights in order to automatically ticket motorists who fail to stop for a red light. Red light cameras may reduce right angle collisions, as several studies [1] have found, but they increase rear-end collisions when people slam on the brakes in order to avoid the fine, even though they could have probably made it through in time. The roads in Iowa where I live are covered in ice and slamming on the brakes can oftentimes cause a car to skid into the intersection anyway. Moreover, city and state governments make hundreds of thousands of dollars from red-light related citations, and most of the drivers paying the fines don't run a red light-they just roll through a right turn. But the fines for those rolling right turns are still just as high as those for people who drive straight through a red light. In Washington D.C., the red-light cameras bring in over $7 million every year. [2] Red light cameras are unsafe and simply raise revenue. [1] http://www.sugarlandtx.gov... [2] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Red light cameras are used primarily for gaining revenue and do not make the roads significantly saf

>>the lights are some times to scare the people that know they are speeding or so on<< We are not discussing speeding cameras because those are more or less safe. >>if everyone could do the right thing these lights would have never been put out... << But is rolling slowly through a red light when taking a right turn the wrong thing to do? This is also irrelevant to the debate. I don't know what you're trying to say when you say you're ageist. I extend both my arguments
Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio

I shall be taking the Con side of the debate and will stand in negation of the resolution. I will first define several important words, then post my argument, and finally refute my opponent's contentions. I. Definitions: Achievement: something accomplished, esp. by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc. ; a great or heroic deed: his remarkable achievements in art. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Significant: important; of consequence. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) II. Contention One: It is immoral to pay teachers based on student achievement. In essence, merit pay based on student achievement is bribery. We are paying our teachers to perform their duties better than they are. We can not morally pay our teachers to perform better. They should be obliged to teach as well as they possibly can regardless. Taxpayers are already paying teachers to do their job, we should not have to pay them in order to get them to do it well. III. Refutation: My opponent states that "my partner and I urge a con ballot" My opponent clearly states that he is in favor of negation of the resolution. He has already conceded the debate since he is debating on the Pro side of the topic. All three of his contentions are in favor of negation of the resolution as well. I do not think that I need to expand on this, he has clearly argued against himself. IV. Conclusion: I claim that it is immoral to pay teachers based on merit. My opponent, has argued against merit pay based on student achievement being a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation. He, however, is on the Pro side of the argument and therefore had conceded the debate.
Visigoths should not be considered Hispanic

Those people have always in the history of racism in America been considered white. The first documented case of racism against Hispanics, was against man named Longoria, not a Gomez, a Sanchez. Visigoths are Germanics, from the Germanic tribe named the Visigoths who conquered Spain in the Middle Ages. Not Spanish.First of all, those people typically act white, cause they are white. They don't say "bro" the way a Rivera (which I am partially) or Santiago will. They act white, they are white. I don't understand how people consider them Hispanic names. Also, it should be noted that of all who started the "Classificacion 80" it was all with true Spanish names like Estess, Garcia, Delgado, Rivera. The Visigoths also love "Friends" too, just for a note, unlike us "Seinfeld"-watching Spanish.But anyways, for those reasons, they should not be considered Spanish or Hispanic.
Visigoths should not be considered Hispanic

Thank you. It was an error. Visigoths are not Spanish at all. They're white. In the USA, until recently, Visigoths were considered white. Mexican surnames for the 1950s were typically Rodriguez, Sanchez, Gomez, Lopez, etc.The first case of actually documented racism in the 1950s against Mexicans was against a non-Visigoth with the last name Longoria.Felix Z. Longoria
Visigoths should not be considered Hispanic

Seeing as the Visigoths are in fact a Germanic tribe, they themselves are not Spanish. Yet the descendants of the Visigoths would have to be considered Spaniards seeing as they were born into the country of Spain. I have no idea why you brought Hispanics into this debate seeing as they are more of a culture than a race. As for the entire "acting white" proposition. Please clarify how someone exactly acts white. Thank you.
The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. I do have the sources: 1. Sejong Silok Jiriji (Geography Section of the Anals of King Sejong's Reign) says Dokdo is part of Korea's Uljin prefacture. It also says Dokdo was a territory of Usan-guk, which was conquered by Silla (Korea during AD 512. This book was published in 1454. 2. Dongguk Munheon Biggo (Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea) also claims Dokdo is Korea's territory. 3. Dajiaokan Order of 1877, which is a source from Japan, says Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo and Dokdo is Korea's island. 4. Isotakeshim ryakuzu (Japan) also shows Dokdo is very close to Ulleungdo, which both countries recognize is Korea's island. If you would like more sources, please go to www.mofat.go.kr or dokdo.mofat.go.kr. Also, go to http://en.wikipedia.org... for proof that Japan has been publicly editing Korea's history. The East Sea has been called that since there were three countries in the Korean Peninsula. Japan became hostile to Korea ever since 500 years ago, and that's when Sea of Japan came up. Thanks for accepting the challenge and good luck!
The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Technically, using my first point, the Sea of Korea would be another liable name. But there are two problems I have with this: 1) This debate, or at least how I took it, is about whether the Sea of Japan should be renamed to East Sea, or stay the same. The name Sea of Korea has nothing to do with this, unless I misinterpreted the title of this debate. 2) It is most widely known as either the East Sea or the Sea of Japan. Why bring in another name, when both sides (Japan & Korea) already have nominated one name each (East Sea & Sea of Japan)? In German, the Baltic Sea is referred to as 'die Ostsee.' That translates to 'the East Sea.' I don't know for sure how long they've been calling that. I couldn't find any sources. But yes, they still call it the East Sea today. I would like to see these records that state exactly that Dokdo is Korea's. Also, I want proof that Japan is publicly editing Korea's history, that the East Sea has been named that since 100 B.C, and that the Sea of Japan name came up less than 500 years ago. Thank you for asking those questions, and good luck with the last round!
The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Thank you for having me debate. I think the Sea of Japan is a better name because when I hear East Sea, I have no idea where in the world that is. You can make a logical guess on where the Indian and Arctic Oceans are. Their names describe the place of where they are located. The Indian Ocean says that it is near India, and the Arctic Ocean states that it is in the Arctic. But the "East Sea" could be anywhere. But when you hear the name Sea of Japan, you automatically think it is by Japan, which is true. Plus, there are other seas in the world already called the East Sea. Here is an example: "The Baltic Sea in ancient sources known as Mare Suebicum (or Mare Germanicum), is also known by the equivalents of "East Sea", "West Sea", or "Baltic Sea" in different languages: in Germanic languages, except English, "East Sea" is used in: Danish (Ostersoen), Dutch (Oostzee), German (Ostsee), Norwegian (Ostersjoen), and Swedish ("stersj"n)." [1] So then more people would become confused, because there is already a sea referred to as the "East Sea." Looking at this map [http://www.mkoreadokdo.com...], I can say that the Sea of Japan/East Sea touches more of Japan's coast than it touches both North and South Korea's coast. So it would just be more logical to call it the Sea of Japan. That is all for now! [1] http://www.bsssc.com...
The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Before I start my argument, I would like to say I am not racist. East Sea is what Koreans call Sea of Japan and the world should recognize it. First of all, there are two islands directly on the sea, including Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks as some people call it. ) Now I'm not being racist, but some many Japanese people say Dokdo is their own. That is not true. Past records from both Korea and Japan clearly says Dokdo is Korea's island. Therefore, The Sea of Japan should be called the East Sea. Also, Japan has tried to publicily edit Korea's history. East Sea has always been named that ever since 100 B. C. The name "Sea of Japan" came up like less than 500 years ago. East Sea has been the name of the area 1,500 years before it was named "Sea of Japan". How come we can't name our own sea by ourselves?