BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is completely moral

So, you agree that a fetus has no value or rights? By this logic, if I had a water soluble pill that kills fetuses, then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with me sneaking it into a pregnant woman's water, right? And if they are pro choice, they to should have no problem with it, after all, they agree that the fetus has no right to live. The fetus is worthless, I have not done anything to cost them using your logic. Your response may be that it is wrong, because it should be her choice whether or not to keep the baby, but this in fact means that they do get to choose the baby's worth. You also claim that gender based abortion is completely moral. And that they would be better off dead than to grow up in an unloving household. First of all, there is adoption, second, you have no right to speak on behalf of them. Lets say that there was a way to figure out of a baby would be gay, would an abortion be moral, of course not. Parents should not be able to deny life based on their opinions alone, that is completely unethical and further supports my claim that they choose the worth of the fetus. And to say that the circumstances are uncommon is wrong, as this happens all the time in China and Iran. And again I say, that if you believe that a fetus has no worth or right to life, then if I kill it without harming the mother, I should be allowed to go scot free, no problem right? My only argument that I would like to add is that in most cases, abortions are used simply for convenience, not often in other cases. And your claim that children born in unstable environments can't live well is completely unwarranted. There are thousands of people whose parents were drug addicts or simply didn't love them that go on to live normal lives. And again, you are no one to speak on behalf of them.
Abortion is completely moral

I agree that by saying abortion is moral it means that a fetus has no value. Although you didn't mention it many pro-lifers (not saying you are one) argue that a fetus could become a world leader or a surgeon ect. I would like to add to my argument the fact that potential=/=value. To further this argument, technically we could all have been these amazing people but, the fact is many fetuses who get aborted would have grown up in an unstable environment with unloving parents. I doubt anyone growing up in this type of situation would become an important person.My rebuttals by paragraph:1: I agree that by saying abortion is moral you say that a fetus has no value or rights. As I discussed above potential=/=value. I disagree with your statement that the parents get to decide the worth of the fetus. For example, a hoarder might consider a rotten orange to have value but it obviously doesn't. "If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live." I will guarantee you that if a pro-choicer is pregnant and wants to keep it doesn't want it to be aborted but doesn't consider it to have a right to live. You will find that whether or not a person thinks a fetus has a right to live lies with their stand on abortion not whether or not the parents want to keep it. "so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being." The law that you are referring to I disagree with completely. I find it contradictory with the rest of US law. To the government a fetus isn't a person until it is born, unless it is murdered without the consent of the mother. I know it's ridiculous. "Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense?" I think we have established that the fetus has potential not worth. Just because the baby isn't wanted it doesn't change its worth. Regardless of the parents thoughts and wishes a fetus is worthless.2: The circumstance you laid out is completely moral, although highly unlikely. If the parents were so serious about having a boy that they resented their child for being a girl I think it would be the right choice to abort. I think a child would prefer to not even exist than to grow up in an unloving environment.
Abortion is completely moral

I am not here to prove whether or not abortion should be legal or not, as said by the title, I am here to prove that abortion is not a moral act. I will start by stating what it means to say that abortion is a completely moral act. First, it means that you believe that the human fetus has no value or rights, after all, it is considered completely moral to end its life.It means that you would agree that it is morally correct that the mother and father of a baby, or fetus, get to choose its worth. If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live, so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being. Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense? And lets agree on something, there are circumstances in which having an abortion is definitely immoral. If I were to believe that abortion is completely and always moral, then I would agree that it is okay to have an abortion if I wanted a boy and found out that the baby was a girl. Would this be moral? Of course not.
Abortion is completely moral

I though we should begin with a brief overview of pregnancy and fetal development. There are three trimesters in a pregnancy each three months long. From the moment of conception to the eighth week the cells are called an embryo. By month three the fetus is "fully developed" as in everything is present but not necessarily functional. By month 5 hair has been grown and muscles are beginning to be developed. By month 6 finger prints are visible and the fetus can respond to outside stimuli by raising its hear rate. At this point if the baby is born it may survive with intensive care. By month 7 the fetus can respond to stimuli and is beginning t store fat. By month 8 the brain is developing at a faster rate and the fetus can see and hear. By month 9 the fetus is nearly a fully formed newborn.http://my.clevelandclinic.org...I think abortion isn't immoral for two reasons1: You can't kill something that isn't alive. Many people use the argument that a fetus/embryo is a separate being with a different DNA code than the mother and thus is another living human who has his/her own rights. However, take teratomas for example. They too are clumps of human cells with different DNA than its host so shouldn't it have rights too? When making laws blurry lines like these can't be incorporated. To continue, it's extremely hard to decide whether or not something is alive. Being alive is a very complicated concept that even science can't neatly define.2: Keeping abortion legal helps protect the mother's right to bodily autonomy. If someone is brain dead and a perfect organ donor the hospital can only harvest if the person signed up to be an organ donor or they can locate the closest family member to give permission to harvest. Being pregnant, although temporary is much like donating your organs to the baby. If abortion was illegal the state would effectively be forcing a mother to donate her organs. If abortion was illegal a pregnant mother would have less rights than a dead body.
Boys are more complicated than girls.

It has been proven with science that Girls are more moody than boys, girls get lots of mood swings because there hormones are crazy. Girls are so confusing that most of the time you cannot tell what mood they are in, it could be happy or bloody angry and explosive. When talking to a girl there is never a right response. You probably find boys so confusing because you have not been around them enough. Many scientific studies have proven that girls have more crazy hormones to make confusing things. When girls get mad at each other often timers they don't even tell one on other they gossip spread rumors and exclude that person while acting nice in front of the persons face to avoid being confronted. A boy will sort it out in a simple fight. A simple fight can sum ups boys life it is always simple and uncomplicated. Boys don't spend hours in the morning trying to look fabulous. Why do girls do this? Know one knows. Girls are impossible to understand and if that is not confusing then what is?
Boys are more complicated than girls.

I totally agree with you there, but Most boys I know are very straight out and always tell me what is on their minds, but when they do that, It gets even more confusing, and it makes them even harder to understand.This is why I would say 100% of the time, boys are harder to understand, and are more confusing than most girls.The girls who try t make things complicated are the ones who are not a part of this.
Boys are more complicated than girls.

I've learned from several surprising relationships that boys often don't tell you if they like you often times they are scared to make a move because they don't want to get rejected. You feeling that boys are not noticing you is simply explained is does not prove that boys are complicated. I am a girl and I can not understand any of the things I do. For example I will never know why the second a friend leaves the room we all must start saying mean things about them. For girls best friends are the ones who don't care what you say behind there back because they know that you know that they will do the same. Boys don't spend hours in the morning on hair and make up but girls do. Why do girls do all this? Know one knows. You not being able to get a decent boy does not make them confusing. For These reasons I can conclude that girls a far more confusing than boys.
Boys are more complicated than girls.

I will be arguing yes to this. I am a girl, and in my opinion boys are extremely complicated, and harder to understand than girls. If anyone disagrees, then please lets start this debate! If you accept, then you are excepting all of the rules. No changes, or add-on"s Rules: First round is for acceptance, and confirmation only. Second and third rounds are for your proof, and info. The final round will be for concluding your statements.
Abortion

"Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate" (I argue this statement) As a matter of fact it is relevant to this debate. The topic we are discussing is abortion and whether it should be accepted or not. Clearly anyone who is kicked in the stomach has witnessed an act of assault. Abortion is only abortion if it is considered to be or not to be by the child carrier. If not considered abortion, it is only a mere act of assault. This can happen to anyone. I now argue my opponent's ideology of the "morning after pill". Referring back to my opponent's definition of abortion, the morning after pill is also another form of abortion. It all eliminates the infant correct? Therefore, my opponent provided another form of abortion that he stated is the solution to pregnancy even though he is supposed to argue against it. Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. Immorality: No, I was not intending it to fall under my opponent's four categories. I was only preventing that from being argued. It may not be relevant to the four types of abortion, but it is relevant to the topic at hand. what is right and wrong? : The people in this world have their own basic concept of what is right or wrong. This can also relate to morality. Every single person shares the same individual mindset, their own gathered ideas and opinions of what is right and wrong. I extend my argument referring to morality with only the slightest question. .. What is moral in this world? Certainly not shaving. This refers to the Bible. It is absolutely hypocritical for someone who shaves to say abortion is immoral. In addition to my opponent's remark about whether kicking a woman in the stomach is moral or not. Assault is not moral. But then again we are not talking about assault, we are talking about abortion. Why I did not respond to the other three categories of abortion, well that is the thing. .. .I actually did in a general remark. Referring to my previous statements about morality, intentional abortion and teen pregnancy. I extend my previous arguments. .. .. In conclusion, I affirm abortion as a way of preventing further difficulty in life with both the mother and child. Creating problems or preventing them with out the slightest sense of guilt. Thank you!
Abortion

Thank you to both the audience and my opponent for yet another debate on abortion. The resolution is simply "Abortion" and my opponent has stated that he supports the affirmative. I shall then argue against that case. To begin, I submit the definition of Abortion by Medicine.net Medical Dictionary: Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. http://www.medterms.com... In addition, here is the wikipedia article in which the introduction defines abortion in the same manner: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since my opponent has used his first round to merely ask for my opening statement and did not clarify the resolution or offer any sort of framing, I will assume that my opponent is trying to affirm "abortion" in general. I start by arguing that there are many forms of abortion that should be prevented on moral grounds. 1. Partial Birth Abortions In which the fetus, nearly fully formed, is destroyed during induced labor. At this point in time, the mother might as well wait until full term and give it up for adoption as the already blurry line of morality in abortion becomes even blurrier. 2. Spontaneous Abortions In which a woman with an implanted fetus loses the fetus accidentally, commonly known as a miscarriage. This should be avoided because for the most part, women who miscarry actually wanted the child. 3. Abortions inflicted on unwilling people There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported. 4. Dangerous abortions I am against many forms of abortion for health reasons. The use of coat hangers to stimulate an abortion, for example. Or throwing oneself off a flight of stairs. Or going to a back-alley abortionist that doubles as a tattoo parlor. These are all very dangerous ways of abortion. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Contemporary First World Civil Societies Should Ban The Use Of The Death Penalty In The Crown Court

Accept my challenge?Resolved: Contemporary First World Civil Societies Should Ban The Use Of The Death Penalty In The Crown (Federal in America) Court.Death penalty as defined by:http://www.thefreedictionary.com...: Noun 1. death penalty - putting a condemned person to death.Federal court as defined by:http://www.legal-explanations.com...n. The court system handling civil and criminal cases determined by the Constitution's jurisdictions and federal statutes. Federal courts include federal district courts, district courts of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, and specialised courts such as bankruptcy, tax, claims, and veterans' appeals.Crown court as defined by thefreedictionary.com:http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (Law) English law a court of criminal jurisdiction holding sessions in towns throughout England and Wales at which circuit judges hear and determine cases.First world as defined by Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org...In today's society the First World is viewed as countries who have the most advanced economies, the greatest influence, the highest standards of living, and the greatest technology.[2] After the Cold War these countries of the First World included member states of NATO, US aligned states, neutral countries who were developed and industrialized, and the former British Colonies which were considered developed. Countries were also placed into the First World based on how civilized the country wasRules:Round one for acceptance.Rounds two--four to outline our respective cases. 8000 character limit.Round five to refute our opponents claims. Self imposed 4000 character limit.72 hours to debate.One week to vote.My opponent must adhere to these conditions.
Resolved: US governments ought legislate against discrimination by sexual orientation in employment.

Rebuttal My opponent makes three points, all based around his main point that "prejudice is not justified in any sense. " What he fails to take into account, however, especially when he writes about the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act is that these are legislative policies coming from the State, for the State. They are public laws−laws that should not apply to private businesses. Take the following syllogism: 1. Business owners should make decisions for their business. 2. The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business. 3. Therefore, business owners should decide employment. I will now defend each of these in a "sub-point" as my opponent has done: Business owners should make decisions for their business I don't see much of an argument here, it is quite intuitive. Business owners should be the only people making decisions regarding their business. The FDA and other government regulative departments are only necessary because they ensure safety and security.1 However, within businesses, it is the responsibility of the owners to manage the business and its affairs, including finance. By regulating a business (in non-safety and non-security matters), the government is effectively making a decision for them, cutting into potential profit and earnings that would rightfully be theirs. It is for this reason that business owners should be the only entity making decisions regarding their business. Success or failure should be determined within the business, by the quality of the management’s decisions. The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business Deciding who to employ is a very tricky process and should be left to the business owners to handle. Who the owner decides to hire is the owner’s decision, even if this decision is made solely on non-business matters. It is their business, their time and effort, and their profit; it is harmful to the business, to the free market, and to liberty in general to determine for someone else who they should employ and under what conditions. Leave it to the owner – leave it to the management, the entrepreneur who took a risk, to decide whether his business succeeds or fails. If you interfere with his decisions, you are interfering with his income. Therefore, business owners should decide employment This is the natural conclusion from my last two points. Businesses are in the private sector;2 thus, it should not be regulated by the state, especially on the basis of something as controversial and subjective as morality. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee is the most attractive, let him do so. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee has the most merit, by which he likes the most, or by who has served in the military, let him do so. It is his private business, his source of income, and to interfere with his decisions regarding his business is dishonest and unfair. Sources 1. . http://goo.gl... 2. . http://goo.gl...
Resolved: US governments ought legislate against discrimination by sexual orientation in employment.

Contention: Prejudice is not justified in any sense. The very nature of prejudice, discriminating on morally irrelevant terms, warrants its eradication by the part of any government, morally and according to the established norms of the United States by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sub. 1a: Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative proves the immorality of prejudice and religion. Kant argues that people must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end, and to engage in the latter by treating people as a means rather than an end would be immoral, like when a man steals a car--taking advantage of another human being in order to achieve his own well-being. This is the best standard because it best promotes social stability and harmony, the main objective of morality. Any act considered to be immoral, especially in our perspective, could be linked back to the categorical imperative, and the status of discrimination against homosexuals would also be taking advantage of a person in order to reach self-gratification. Religion does not achieve the ultimate purpose of morality because the actions therein move toward social disharmony, discrimination, and general harm, especially in the case of homosexuals. Sub 1b: The 14th Amendment disallows prejudice against American citizens. The 14th Amendment states the following: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " At the point where a government allows for laws that abridge homosexuals the privilege of employment without warrant, this would run contrary to the standards of the 14th Amendment--specifically designed in order to make an attempt to stop prejudice in the American society. Sub 1c: The 1964 Civil Rights Act comes into play because discrimination against homosexuals is arguably sexism. At the point where the Civil Rights Act stops discrimination against gender and homosexuals are denied equality because of them not upholding "proper" roles of men or women, the 1964 Civil Rights could apply in arguing that these laws that allow for the discrimination of homosexuals in employment are unjust in the context of federal government.
Evolution is defensible.

Actually, Evolution can be true even if abiogenesis is false. An god could have created that first living molecule 3.5 - 4 billions years and start observing the earth, knowing that millions (if not billions) of species would exist then eventually go extinct, due to evolution. This analogy (that I used) is showing that evolution can be true even if abiogenesis is false. Since I was attacking a strawman last round, I am going to refute it an different way. But since I don't have enough time to fully refute the argument (because of the fact that I have exams), I am going to provide an link for you to refute. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Evolution is defensible.

No, evolution needs abiogenesis, because either the first living organisms came from non-living material, or it came out of nothing - which is called creationism. Either you can prove beyond all doubt that abiogenesis is a fact, or you have to admit that there is a hole in the evolutionary theory, which means its validity can be discussed. As for your argument, you are semiright. True, Earth is an open system, and as such the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not totally forbid that reaction to happen. But what I wrote is not that such a reaction could not happen, it is that it would not happen spontaneously. To go back to the example of the water going downwards (see link), it will indeed bounce back if it hits a rock - but also, it will never go upwards if it doesn't hit a rock, no matter how much energy it receives. In living bodies, larger molecules are created all the time - but life also has specific mechanisms to "force" these reactions, because they would NOT happen at random