BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

Okay, by re quoting what I said and saying it's irrelevant is stupid. I'm stating points that prove that infanticide is wrong and ways to prevent it. You are just restating what I've said and saying it's incorrect or irrelevant. Everything I've stated is solid and should prove that there is no excuse for the murder of an infant. CON vote please! =]
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

"If the family is too poor to feed the baby, give him/her to a foster home! " Circumstances do not always allow for this. Besides, the mere existence of options does not necessitate that one particular option is morally wrong. "And if they don't want the child growing up in your so-called "hellish world" then why did they have the baby? ?? !! !" Pointless speculation. This does not change what is right and wrong. "The mother should have refrained from having sex if it's such a big deal. Even protected sex fails. " This does not change what is right and wrong. ======== Conclusion My opponent has not made a substantial case and has failed to refute my own. I request that the voters judge impartially, despite any predisposed feelings on this issue.
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

If the family is too poor to feed the baby, give him/her to a foster home! Someone would call child services. And if they don't want the child growing up in your so-called "hellish world" then why did they have the baby???!!! Me- "If anything, people love infants." You- "Which is exactly why they will not commit infanticide unless it is absolutely necessary." Well it's not necessary, there is no positive influence on the murder or whatever you would like to call it on a infant. The mother should have refrained from having sex if it's such a big deal. Even protected sex fails. That's the parents fault and if taking a babies life in order to clear up a parents mistake of having a baby at a bad time is OK then I am very upset. I thank MTGandP for this challenge yet I strongly urge a CON vote.
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

"And how is it best for society?" My point is that, under the circumstances in which infanticide is best for society, infanticide is justified. "The only bad thing they do is cry a lot. (Depending on the baby.)" This is an irrelevant point. "There is NO benefit for killing a infant at all." There is plenty of benefit. What if the family is too impoverished to feed another child? What if the parents don't want their child growing up in a hellish world? "If you think about saying it's a means of pop. control, your wrong. It's actually decreasing." The population is not decreasing. Population is growing worldwide [1] at a rate of about 200,000 people per day [2]. "There really is not any evidence to prove my point except the infant has every right to live." That is not evidence; that is an unsubstantiated claim. "If anything, people love infants." Which is exactly why they will not commit infanticide unless it is absolutely necessary. "There is no supporting evidence on why infant mortality is acceptable." I have provided plenty of evidence, which my opponent has avoided. (By the way, infant mortality refers to the rate of death in infants, not to infanticide.) So far, my opponent has ignored and avoided my core arguments, and has not provided a substantial case of his own. [1] http://www.nationmaster.com... [2] http://www.worldbank.org...
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

It's a matter of not deserving to live? I do not see how it's that case. And how is it best for society? The only bad thing they do is cry a lot. (Depending on the baby.) Any mother/father would be shocked to hear that there new-born beautiful baby is to die. There is NO benefit for killing a infant at all. None! If you think about saying it's a means of pop. control, your wrong. It's actually decreasing. Just clearing that up. There really is not any evidence to prove my point except the infant has every right to live. If anything, people love infants. Let's say Jane Doe is walking her infant in the grocery store, and John Smith sees him/her and says "Aw, how cute? How old?" See, people like infants, MOST people. There is no supporting evidence on why infant mortality is acceptable.
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

My opponent has conceded that my first paragraph is a correct basis for morality. But all of my other paragraphs follow from this one: if the first paragraph is accepted, then the others must be as well. "Infants have done nothing to anyone too deserve to die." It is not so much a matter of deserving to die as it is a matter of not deserving to live. Infants have no inherent right to life. As my opponent has conceded, the right to life comes from self-aware and rational desires. Infants do not have this, and therefore do not have the right to life. "He/she has done no crimes and deserves to live." Crimes are irrelevant. This is about doing what is best for society. My opponent asserts that infants deserve to live, but has no supporting evidence. "Please explain how it's OK to decease a infants innocent life." That is exactly what I have already done. It is now up to my opponent to either refute my logic or offer conflicting evidence.
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

You are correct in your first paragraph. I beg to differ on the rest. Infants may not be totally sure on what they do or don't want in life but that does not rightly give someone an excuse to kill them. I don't care even if it's a painless injection. Infants have done nothing to anyone too deserve to die. Even if the parents can't or just don't want to raise the child he still deserves a life. He/she has done no crimes and deserves to live. Even if adoption is not an option which it usually is, foster homes are always accepting children. Please explain how it's OK to decease a infants innocent life.
Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

Hunton accepted a proposal to debate this topic, and it sounds like fun. An interesting challenge. ;] Infanticide: The killing of an infant. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) ======== Whence rights? Who deserves rights? Most human rights stem from the fundamental axiom that people's desires should be respected. For instance, murder is morally wrong because people have a deep desire to live, and that desire should be respected. Theft is wrong because people have a desire to retain their belongings. Even if they do not have a direct desire to retain certain belongings, there is still an indirect desire. If one's belongings are stolen, even if the belongings are not treasured, it is an infringement on personal privacy and wellbeing. Infants up until one month of age are incapable of true desire. Sure, they may have wants, but they do not have a true understanding of their own position in the world and of their own being. In essence, they are not self-aware. Beings that are not self-aware do not truly have desire in the manner of which I am speaking, and so these beings do not deserve the same fundamental rights as people. Since infants are unable to truly and deeply desire anything, they have no true rights. Sometimes, it is necessary for the good of the tribe to make sacrifices. For one reason or another, a mother may be unable to care for her child. Adoption may not be a viable option. The best thing to do is to sacrifice the young child for the protection and wellbeing of the entire community. It would be unjust to knowingly harm society for the sake of a being with no true desires. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The US Government should stop development of the Keyston Pipeline.

I apologize for my forfeit. I agree with the definition presented by my opponent. First I will argue that the Keystone Pipeline is more advantageous than relying on foreign oil which constitutes a large portion of our oil [1]. While I am arguing that the government should not prohibit the building of the Pipeline, they should not be the ones primarily pushing for it. It should be a pretty much private endeavor with the government consulted in regards to conflicts which may arise and handling the permitting, while most of the business be handled by TransCanada or some other companies. Tar-Sand Oil It may be a bit worse for the environment, but if it is maintained properly there should be minimal problems. TransCanada My opponent brings up the point tat they don’t have great record, in that case there should be something to the effect of an ongoing audit and oversight. Texas This pipeline will take a long time to complete there is no telling if there will still be a drought. If the drought continues the Texas portion can be postponed while the rest become operational. As for Eminent domain, it is a major concern. It must first be noted that it is allowable according to the fifth amendment but the way it is applied is often abusive. Also, as I have stated in my intent, the government should take a minimal role. Jobs and the economy While the amount of jobs created directly by the building of the pipeline will be minimal, the effect will be to improve the economy since it will help to reduce the price of oil, making the price of doing business cheaper and businesses be able to hire more people. Overall although there are issues, it will be a net gain for the economy. This along with the abundance of domestic oil we are sitting on will reduce gas prices. 1 http://www.eia.gov...
The US Government should stop development of the Keyston Pipeline.

This is a debate for the DDO Tournament. I will argue that the Keystone Pipeline should be built.Round 1. AcceptanceRound 2. Oppening arbumentsRound 3. RebuttleRound 4. Closing argumentsDefinition- Keyseont Pipeline: an oil pipeline that is to travel from Canada to central and Southern US.Thanks to my opponent and let this debate begin.
In Defense Of Practical Moral Skepticism

It's been a while since my last debate, so I figure I'll start a debate in response to several forum threads I've posted in (concerning ethical issues). My position and burden is to demonstrate that practical moral skepticism is a sound stance that would probably lead one to readily reconsider the nature of ethics, though obviously I'm interested only in proving the former goal. My opponent can deny my position in any way possible, except semantics and other foolery. Practical moral skepticism is interested in only one, albeit pivotal, meta-ethical question: "why should I be moral?" A few things need to be clarified about this question, as it will be the center feature of this debate: 1. It is meta-ethical in nature, meaning a debate about which ethical system is superior is misguided. So don't come into this debate arguing in favor of Kantian ethics or Objectivism, unless you can demonstrate how the respective philosophies help answer this question. 2. The basic claim is that there is no necessary reason to always act morally, thus calling into the question of the force of ethics even if a system were to be found correct. I can expand into this in greater detail later. The point of this debate is to defend moral skepticism, since several people have asked me about my moral skepticism before. I'll be the first to admit that I am not entirely confident of my position, nor have I remain stagnant about it (my skepticism has involved into other forms). However, I have to be true to my beliefs and this is what I feel to be the correct meta-ethical theory. What my opponent must do is present arguments that will negate my position. This can be done by either attacking my position directly, or arguing for another ethical position who's truth will deny skepticism. Note, however, that if I can expose flaws in their proposed ethical system then they are left with no way to counter moral skepticism. I await the first challenger.
Twenty One Pilots is better than Eminem

I wake up fine and dandy but then by the time I find it handy, To rip my heart apart and start planning my crash landing, I go up, up, up, up, up to the ceiling, Then I feel my soul start leaving, like an old man's hair receding, I'm pleading please, oh please on my knees repeatedly asking, Why it's got to be like this, is this living free, I don't want to be the one, be the one who has the sun's blood on my hands, I'll tell the moon, take this weapon forged in darkness, Some see a pen, I see a harpoon. I'll stay awake, 'Cause the dark's not taking prisoners tonight. Why am I not scared in the morning, I don't hear those voices calling, I must have kicked them out, I must have kicked them out, I swear I heard demons yelling, Those crazy words they were spelling, They told me I was gone, they told me I was gone. But I'll tell them, Why won't you let me go? Do I threaten all your plans? I'm insignificant. Please tell them you have no plans for me. I will set my soul on fire, what have I become? I'll tell them. On the eve of a day that's forgotten and fake, And the trees they await and clouds anticipate, The start of a day when we put on our face, A mask that portrays that we don't need grace, On the eve of a day that is bigger than us, But we open our eyes 'cause we're told that we must, And the trees wave their arms and the clouds try to plead, Desperately yelling there's something we need, I'm not free, I asked forgiveness three times, Same amount that I denied, I three-time mvp'ed this crime, I'm afraid to tell you who I adore, won't tell you who I'm singing towards, Metaphorically I'm a whore, and that's denial number four. I'll stay awake, 'Cause the dark's not taking prisoners tonight. Why am I not scared in the morning, I don't hear those voices calling, I must have kicked them out, I must have kicked them out, I swear I heard demons yelling, Those crazy words they were spelling, They told me I was gone, they told me I was gone. But I'll tell them, Why won't you let me go? Do I threaten all your plans? I'm insignificant, Please tell them, you have no plans for me, I will set my soul on fire, what have I become? I'll tell them, you have no plans for me, I will set my soul on fire, What have I become? I'll tell them, I'll tell them, I'll tell them, I'll tell them, Please tell them, you have no plans for me, I will set my soul on fire, what have I become? I'm sorry. http://www.azlyrics.com...
Twenty One Pilots is better than Eminem

Thanks for excepting Am I the only one I know, Waging my wars behind my face and above my throat? Shadows will scream that I'm alone. I-I-I I've got a migraine and my pain will range from up, down, and sideways, Thank God it's Friday 'cause Fridays will always, Be better than Sundays 'cause Sundays are my suicide days, I don't know why they always seem so dismal, Thunderstorms, clouds, snow, and a slight drizzle, Whether it's the weather or the letters by my bed, Sometimes death seems better than the migraine in my head, Let it be said what the headache represents, It's me defending in suspense, it's me suspended in a defenseless test, Being tested by a ruthless examinant that's represented best by my depressing, Thoughts, I do not have writer's block, my writer just hates the clock, It will not let me sleep, I guess I'll sleep when I'm dead, And sometimes death seems better than the migraine in my head. Am I the only one I know, Waging my wars behind my face and above my throat? Shadows will scream that I'm alone, But I know we've made it this far, kid. Yeah, yeah, yeah I am not as fine as I seem, pardon, Me for yelling, I'm telling you green gardens, Are not what's growing in my psyche, it's a different me, A difficult beast feasting on burnt down trees, Freeze frame please, let me paint a mental picture portrait, Something you won't forget, it's all about my forehead, And how it is a door that holds back contents, That make Pandora's Box's contents look nonviolent, Behind my eyelids are islands of violence, My mind's shipwrecked, this is the only land my mind could, Find, I did not know it was such a violent island, Full of tidal waves, suicidal crazed lions, They're trying to eat me, blood running down their chin, And I know that I can fight or I can let the lion win, I begin to assemble what weapons I can find, 'Cause sometimes to stay alive you got to kill your mind. Am I the only one I know, Waging my wars behind my face and above my throat? Shadows will scream that I'm alone, But I know we've made it this far, kid. Ah, yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah Oh, oh Yeah, yeah, yeah And I will say that we should take a day to break away, From all the pain our brain has made, The game is not played alone. And I will say that we should take a moment and hold it, And keep it frozen and know that, Life has a hopeful undertone. And I will say that we should take a day to break away, From all the pain our brain has made, The game is not played alone. And I will say that we should take a moment and hold it, And keep it frozen and know that, Life has a hopeful undertone. Am I the only one I know, Waging my wars behind my face and above my throat? Shadows will scream that I'm alone, But I know we've made it this far, kid. We've made it this far We've made it this f... http://www.azlyrics.com...
The Earth is irrefutably flat

You miss the point: the argument is that the universe is a simulation, and therefore Earth isn't designed like some flat ornate table of spherical space but a tiny part of a cosmic machine that in its specific format (due to its small size) would have to be flat relative to the shape of the entire machine. For instance, a table at the macro level is flat: on the micro level however, not so. At the macro level, compared to the rest of the universal machine, Earth would be a simple flat component of it, not a strange 3D shape. Another example: at the macro level, a disc look flats yet on closer examination is full of indents giving it a non-flat shape on the micro level. As such, one does not have to divert to feudal understandings (giving you something easier to debate against) to argue for a flat earth, but give you the harder question of whether the Simulation Hypothesis is true or false (making your hoped response of: 'You idiot! The scientific method!' redundant).
The Earth is irrefutably flat

First and Only Point:If we, as human beings, are indeed living in a computer-generated simulation, who is to say if the people who rendered this simulation would have modeled the earth as a spheroid or a flat plane, which resets our debate back to its very beginnings.Is the earth itself flat?Regardless as to whether or not we live in a simulation, and if the hardware used to power it is flat, we do not know if the Earth would be rendered as a sphere, so, we are forced to debate medieval Catholicism. At least, the flat-earth part of it.
The Earth is irrefutably flat

What? You wanted someone to argue medieval Catholicism? That's absurd -- why would you want that? Rebuttal Point 1: As science uses the inductive model (including in determining the shape of the planet), there's no irrefutable proofs about anything. There's only degrees of likelihood relative to models of verification we have construed. Ergo, if all we are seeking is irrefutable proof, this too dismisses the possibility that (1) the Earth is irrefutably spherical--it's only unimaginably likely to be so. Point 2: Simulation Theory doesn't have to entail cosmic designers, a 'they', and additionally a condensed space would be the most likely hardware given the breakdown of spaitality (e.g. in non-localisation). And, even if the form of such technology might not be flat, the specific hardware the Earth resides on would likely be--like on a cosmic circuit-board within the technology. Unless you can conceive of another type of hardware that could retain information in this way.... http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk...
The Earth is irrefutably flat

Why our planet Earth could be flat: P1 Our universe is possibly a simulation. P2 The hardware that generates simulations is usually flat. P3 The Earth is part of the universe. C The Earth possibly flat. P1 Our universe is possibly a simulation. (Bostrom 2003): https://www.simulation-argument.com... P2 The hardware that generates simulations is usually flat. Photographs, computers, paintings, discs, and fiction... all these mediums can be said to hold a form of simulated world yet are simultaneously flat in nature. If (P1) is true, accounting for the connection of non-localised particles regardless of space, then it is likely that space is illusory and all the substantive content of the universe is contained on one piece of hardware. Ergo, the universe and the world alike are possibly retained on a flat medium. P3 The Earth is part of the universe. Apodictic--needing no further justification.
The Earth is irrefutably flat

Thank you for asking for clarification, your goal is to prove that the common flat-earther model of Earth is accurate If the photo decides it will show up, something along those lines is the model you should be proving true. I have discovered that most flat-earthers believe in the geocentric model as well, and while it is not part of the debate if you are a *true* flat-earther I will debate any of those notions.Your main objective is to basically disprove a round-earth and prove a flat-earth modelin case the site doesn't add my photohttp://media.gizmodo.co.uk...
The Earth is irrefutably flat

Though while the earth is realistically perceived as of spherical shape (not a perfect sphere), this rests on certain normative assumptions about the objective world which can be refuted and which I will be refuting in subsequent rounds. What you have implicitly set out for me to do is twofold: 1) to argue that our planet Earth is not of spherical shape, and 2) to argue that it is in fact flat. As such, I will need to clarify over what is sufficient to calling something 'flat': if, say, we could conceive the world of being on a programme on a computer disk, could we then say that it is flat because it's real form is flat? Or, would the qualitative experience we have of the world as not flat overrule this possibility? This again is not my contention, but merely an illustration over a need to particularly define the adjective, 'flat', and that which it describes precisely (which I'll charitably let you do).
Famous Poems: Poetry Competition

Well since my opponent forfeited a round, I will keep this poem short. A Japanese death poem by Senryu in 1827[1] "Empty-handed I entered the world Barefoot I leave it. My coming, my going -- Two simple happenings That got entangled." [1]http://www.quietspaces.com... A Japanese death poem of this style is often done by a samurai who has prepared for his death. Senryu the author of the poem has prepared for his death. He came into the world with nothing and shall leave the same world with nothing. The theme is death. The poem uses imagery when he mentions "barefoot," "empty-handed," and "coming" and "going." The poem has a hyperbole in the last line, "that got entangled."