BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The prohibition of any substance is inherently immoral.

I cannot make a viable argument as far as whether "we own our own bodies, and have the right to use them as we see fit". But, I don't believe that is relevant in the argument at hand. Even if my opponent could prove the above statement to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, that does not excuse anybody from their inherent responsibility and liability that comes with everyday life. *If my opponent is coming from the standpoint that I am free to experiment with any substance that I feel fit to try, that's fine on the surface, but if I get in a car while under the influence of LSD and I cause harm to others, that argument doesn't hold up in court. I understand that my argument may seem redundant because my opponent could point out that I would be infringing on the rights of others if I cause harm with my car, but that argument will only hold up if my opponent can prove that the LSD did not cause me to cause the harm. One could take it a step further and argue that the drug didn't cause me to cause harm, but MY decision to take the drug caused me to cause harm, therefore it was my decision to take the drug which caused me to cause harm. So that leaves us at the logical conclusion that we need to prohibit SOME substances that are known to impair ones judgement so severely that they can no longer control their actions. Whether we are free to take those substances is irrelevant because we are never free from the consequences of our actions.
Resolved: Self-harm (including suicide) is morally permissible.

Contention 1: Suicide is contary to natural self love, whose aim is to preserve us. Here my opponent uses social darwinism and survival of the fittest to counter my contention. I will show that social darwinism is not a valid moral system, as it justifies massive extermination (ie the Holocost) which is certainly unethical. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...) Also, suicide would go against the theory of evolution that social darwinism is based off of as the purpose of evolution is to survive and reproduce, and comitting suicide, ending one's life, would oppose the purpose of evolution, and self harming could ruin's one chances of both survival and successful reproduction, so both suicide and self harm would go against evolution, the basis of social darwinism. The second objection was any materialist theory of the mind, as my opponent failed to counter this properly, I assume that Kant's argument goes unchallenged. Contention 2: Suicide Injures the community of which an individual is a part of. Arguing from the utilitarian theory, it seems that whatever has the net benefit in a certain situation would be ethical, so the ethics of suicide is ultimately dependent on the situation. On balance, however, it seems that comitting suicide is unethical according to utiliarianism because most people commit suicide because they are depressed, not to bring benefit to the community. In fact, acts of self harm and suicide causes psychological issues such as depression for the members of the community and closed loved ones. The more people are depressed, the less they can work and produce ideas, and the less they reproduce, as this depression spreads, lack of productivity spreads, making it a net negative for all. Contention 3: Suicide violates our duty to God. Assuming the Judeo Christian God exists, He sets the standard of morality God states that suicide is immoral (and by extension self harm is immoral) Therefore, suicide is immoral.
Resolved: Self-harm (including suicide) is morally permissible.

WARNING!!!! THIS DEBATE WILL/MAY CONTAIN GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS THAT MAY BRING BACK TERRIBLE MEMORIES. THESE PICTURES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBATE ONLY AND NOT TO JUST POST THEM. IF YOU ARE QUEEZY OR MIGHT RELAPSE INTO A DEPRESSION PLEASE MOVE AWAY FROM THIS DEBATE!I would like to thank That1user for accepting this debate and I look forward to a great debate.Rules First round is acceptance. Second round is opening arguments, no rebuttles shall be made. The Procicuting side will call witnesses to the stand in Round 2. Third Round is Rebuttles. Forth Round is Rebuttles and conclusion. Wikipeadia is not an acceptable source.No SemanticsNo TrollingUpon accepting the debate you also accept the following definitions.Self-harm- the practice of cutting or otherwise wounding oneself, usually considered as indicating psychological disturbance (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)*Note- Self Harm may include suicide as well.* Morally- Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Permissible- Permitted; allowable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
Animal Rights

In your first argument, you state,"Well what if a harmful ingredient was mixed into the publicly sold products. Many people could get hurt or even killed. " Well, companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products. Ingredients like parabens and phlathes that have already been tested, are still in use. Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel. In your second argument, you state,"The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want. " That is a baseless reason to allow testing on animals. There is no evidence to show that cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. There is literally no evidence to support that claim. Rodents indeed have a personality and emotions. Scientists have conducted many experiments to see if rodents have emotions. There is an abundant amount of evidence showing that rodents have an emotion and a personality. Is it right to test and harm animals just for beauty products? Lastly, you asked me about an alternative to testing cosmetics. There are many alternatives. The website . http://www.humanesociety.org... lists many alternatives that can save many animals from being tested on. As you can see, animal testing is cruel and unnecessary. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://beautyfool.com... . http://www.avoncompany.com... . http://www.humanesociety.org... . http://www.mindbodygreen.com... . http://www.animalplanet.com...
Animal Rights

Thank you con for this debate. There are no rules so I will start of with my opening arguments. Opposing Argument #1: Cosmetics are widely used through the world today. However combining chemical to make new smells, colors. and textures can be dangerous. On average, respondents use nine products daily. These contain 126 unique ingredients. One man in 100 and fully 25 percent of women surveyed apply 15 or more products each day. Well what if a harmful ingredient was mixed into the publicly sold products. Many people could get hurt or even killed. So what is the alternative to endangering the public people? Well it's to test these products. We use animals to test these product so that people don't get hurt. Questions? 1. Pro what would an alternative be to test cosmetics? 2. If no alternative would you prefer endangering lives? Opposing Argument#2: These tests are tested on animals so that it will be safe for humans. However animals do die from these tests. The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want. Some people do have these animals as pets but most are disgusted by them. The rodents are mindless creatures with no personality or feeling. Conclusion: People want to smell good and look good. Cosmetics can do that for us. However it can be dangerous. So con what it comes down to is, endanger humans or rodents? Sources (http://www.humanesociety.org...) (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu...)
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is really not a topic you can discuss. I think its just one of those things that is a personal preference. If i want to choose to die an my family supports me and my friends support me then i should be able to die, regardless of whether or not I'm suffering or whether or not i have 10 days, to 100 years to live. I really cannot see things any other way. Euthanasia is such a big part of the world and hopefully like abortion i will be able to choose it when i want it. A sort of on demand death. It sounds morbid but it really does help some people, regardless of their suffering.
Euthanasia

Even though you may or may not believe in God, if you sit there and push through your suffering until the end, good or bad, think of the impact that will have on your friends and family. To sit there, not to watch you die, but to watch the incredible strength you have and to see what a great example of power, strength, and will. Not to choose Euthanasia. This can only be the right decision. You cant make your loved ones except a fate where you choose to leave them. Maybe it will end your suffering but for others it causes it and raises questions. All can be avoided however. If you make the right choice. to Live.
Euthanasia

Suffering is never "good". However think about the opportunities that lie in suffering. You can offer it up. Whether or not you believe in God, you must have some sense of right and wrong and balance. So wouldn't it make sense as your suffering, to let that suffering pay your dues for any evil you may have done previously? That seems balanced to me. Instead of just opting out, go as long and as hard as you can without faltering. It seems almost cowardly to choose to be Euthanized when you can just make the best of suffering. You always have a choice. Sure you can vouch for someone and say they don't want to live and have them killed, or you can even choose your own Euthanasia. But would you really be willing to give up all your loved ones and all your memories just to escape suffering. Live life to the fullest, right?
Euthanasia

Euthanasia helps people. Isn't helping people good? Isn't that what your god wants? People to not have to suffer? People helping others? You claim euthanasia is such an issue, but why? Shouldn't it be someones choice to choose when they die? For example, i get into a serious car accident, i am suffering greatly and the doctor tells me i have a week to live. Why should i have to live that one week in suffering? if i have the choice to die now and not suffer and just pass on, why can't i take it? it doesn't make sense that euthanasia is bad, when people suffering, and actively being hurt is good?
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is everywhere. Slowly festering like a disease it spreads throughout the world becoming more and more prevalent in our modern world. We need to stop it before it spreads. Why? Well what do we use euthanasia for? Euthanasia is used to off those in suffering who cannot bear to live any longer with the pain they are using. But how is this good? We take away life given to us by a much higher power and in way we play god. Even though euthanasia is primarily used for animals and elderly, why don't we use it on others? A person theoretically could sentence anyone to death just by claiming the person is mentally incapable and that they are in to much pain to continue living. Euthanasia kills off the old, abortion kills off the young. What's next? How long is it gonna take till the middle aged people die? We cannot play God. Whether or not they want it, we cant play Go.
yes is better than no

Unity on a lie in many more cases than not. It would be better to lie than open up the possibility of hurting yourself, and even worse, the lie-ee to any of the reprecussions. But in conversation No has good purposes too. It confirms things better than yes does. For instance: "do you remember the last homework assignment?" If yes: "what is it?" suppose you don't really know, then both yours and their time is wasted waiting for you to either remember or admit your folly. If you do, then they'll ask questions in regard to it, many, even if you had the homework, you may not know. If you do know then they'll want more help with other things and so on. If No: "Okay then" and someone else can go through all that. Disagreement is also not a bad thing, as disagreement brings out problems, and thus solutions for that problem. Even if you did get into an argumet, surely many problems would be address, thus giving both of you insight into ways to possibly better yourself and them. But if you just agree, nothing will go unchanged and ultimatly deteriorate yourself rather than help. No is also the cause of revolution. Suppose the French had not started the revolution, or better yet America. Rather they both continued to abide by their corrupt and harmful governments. Both countries would be worse of. America being the closest for both of us, would be no where near the superpower it is today, but would probably end up like India, who DID continue to obey the conquering British. But that didn't happen. Someone finally said NO and conflict broke out, which in the end brought more properity than EVER! I do agree with that proposition, but still affirm that NO is better, because unlike submissive Yes, No leads to honesty and improvement.
yes is better than no

No may express some sort of individuality, but yes leads to unity. Sure, many people say yes just to give in to some one else, but there are many people who say no only to start an argument. Ofcourse I don't like pigs feet or straight up dog, I said no. But using no to identify to yourself is different than using no in a conversation. When discussing the weather of the past day one says "it was very cloudy." But his friend says "No, it wasn't cloudy at all." This little exchange is my premises. No, by it's nature leads to disagreement and makes for an uncomfortable conversation. Yes is a symbol of agreement. To say yes, only to "fit in" or to conform is wrong. But saying "no", by the words nature, means to create confrontation. So we must agree on the contest in which "No" and "Yes" are being used to decide, in fact which is "better".
yes is better than no

No. No is better. Why? Because it establishes what you want. Yes is submissing yourself to another's viewpoint, but no makes you an individual. Take food for example. Do you like asparagus? what about fried pigs feet? or just dog, do you like eating dog? If you answered no to any of these I've proved my point, this means either vocally or mentally. You can write 'yeah, I said I liked them all' but the only thing that you probably could honestly say you maybe agree with is asparagus. But if it happens you do like them theres a plethora of others I could name. But supposing you did say 'no' you actually thought about yourself. You looked semi-deep and defined who you are, a man who doesn't like these types of food. If you said yes you did not define yourself according to your will but mine by agreeing with me statement. Agreement makes you a servant while rebellion makes you a you. Now I could list political, entertainment, personal, etc things too but I don't need that much detail. Now to your example about the concert conversation. Perhaps the friend does not like John Mayer, but is more extreme and prefers Maralin Manson. In truth, he detests John Mayer so much he has a personal voodoo shrine devoted just to him. So in saying yes' he not only lied to himself but you as well. Yes then bred distrust, whether you realized it or not. You don't go more into it but suppose you went to a concert, and again your comadre dishonestly says 'yes, I want to go'. He didn't want to hurt your feelings but now his are hurt. You didn't really care about him or what he might actually like but yourself. During the concert to him it is like scratching nails on a chalkboard, and as it progresses more and more contempt grows for you in his heart. Until finally after the concert where you keep saying how great it was he finally explodes on you! This ruins your friendship. Truth or politness? It might make better conversation for one party, but not necessarily both. So while it seems positive on the outside, yes has more potential to do harm than no.
yes is better than no

The concept of Yes is really a positive word. Through out it's (the word "yes" being it, ofcourse) use, we find that it is used when one is in agreement with others, one agrees for something more, and/or avoids conflict. "Isn't John Mayer a great guitar player" one friend asked the other. "Yes, he is." Replies his friend. So you can see in this small example the mood of these friends is still positive and happy. "Isn't John Mayer a great guitar player" one friend asked the other. When his friend says "No." the conversation switches to an agrumentitive atmosphere. "No" in it's nature is used to disagree and argue. So in all, "Yes" is better when used in conversation. (Note: I'm not saying "No" is not important. As we know on this site the word "No" is important when in debate. My point here is to say that "Yes" is "better" for communication.)
Abortion: A Topic of Deadly Consequences

I suppose it was a bit foolish of me not to look up sentient. And to clear this up, I don't trust Merriam-Webster above all other dictionaries. In fact, I generally prefer Oxford, but Oxford's definition for human was "a human being," which doesn't help. However, it is a good dictionary and I will not argue against the definitions it provides. Especially because this is the last round, and I should have defined things myself last round. So it might be true that sentience is not the reason why we should value each other's lives. However, I brought up other points. Emotion Intellect Ability to contribute to the society we all depend on These are all reasons for valuing human life that I have given earlier in the debate. My opponent believes that we should value life solely based on it's DNA. That we should value life based solely on whether it is 'genetically human' Let's take a look at my opponent's justification for his definition of human. He solely supports the fact that human must have human DNA. This brings in the question once again: are blood cells part of the human species? My opponent has upheld the only contention of his definition that I originally agreed with. He has not supported his made-up notions that the being has to be a separate organism and it has to be complex. Now I would like to recap. My opponent wants us to value human life BECAUSE it is human (genetically). This, as I said before, is clearly a sentiment in the same vein as racism. As long as they're in OUR LITTLE GROUP, they deserve rights. That is not a meaningful way to assign rights, nor is it fair. If we're going to assign special rights to humans, there better be reasons besides "because they're humans. " I, on the other hand, have offered other reasoning for why people deserve rights. Because we have feelings and emotions - pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness, etc. This means we can empathize with one another. Because we are intelligent. This means we can think on a high level, that we have a good level of understanding of what we see. That we try and figure things out, etc. Because we are part of a mutually beneficial society. This means that the other person's existence in fact helps us. These are all good reasons to value life. No attempt was made against any of these, my opponent simply argued that 'sentient' wasn't a good criterion. Based on the definition that was given, it was in fact a bad criterion, and I apologize for that. However, the rest of my argument stands. Abortion is not wrong. At least before a certain stage, an embryo does not have attributes that should grant it the rights and privileges you and I enjoy. Simply being part of our genetic group is not a good reason to grant rights, and I have provided better criteria.
Abortion: A Topic of Deadly Consequences

My opponent has made two counterarguments against my own. First, he argues that sentience cannot be used as a criteria of worth for an organism. To back this up, he asks if it would be OK to kill a coma patient. The answer to that is no, but a coma patient is sentient. Like a man in a deep sleep, a coma patient is simply UNCONSCIOUS. I didn't say consciousness was something that gives an individual rights. I don't have the right to kill you when you sleep, when you fall into a coma, or when I hit you over the head with a sap. The fact that you're not actively utilizing your sentience makes no difference, you have it nonetheless. Conscious does not mean sentient. Second, my opponent has decided to define what constitutes a human being. He has given 3 criteria by which something can be called human. 1. Must be an organism. 2. Must have more than one cell. 3. Must be made up by the blueprints of human DNA. First, I would point out that my opponent arbitrarily made up these definitions. Second, I would like to point out that based solely on the list my opponent has given, it is not immoral to kill another human. In round 1, I put forward the idea that it is immoral to kill something else if it is sentient, feeling, intelligent. It would not be right for us to kill sentient, feeling, intelligent aliens, would it? Outside of war, of course. My opponent is asking that we base who or what should live based on what DNA it has. Does this sound familiar? Many people, even today, think that certain races are inferior, less than 'human.' All because different races have different DNA. In fact, we ALL have different DNA. A fetus does not have the ability to feel, a fetus does not have the ability to think, a fetus does not have the ability to do anything except leech nutrients and grow. At least before certain stages, it does not have any qualities that should grant it the rights and privileges given to everyone else in society. My opponent is asking that we value life based on DNA codes. I am asking that we value life based on that which is actually valuable - emotion, intelligence, feeling, etc. Which is more reasonable? The answer should be clear. Valuing life based on what brand of DNA you're sporting is just racism on another level. If we accept my value system here, then an embryo does not deserve the rights us fully-developed humans have. And that's if we accept my opponent's definition of human, which he manufactured to fit his argument. As far as I knew, humans were bipedal primate mammals(1). Embryo's certainly aren't bipedal, and it's debatable as to whether they are primate mammals. (1)Note: This is an ACTUAL definition, from http://www.merriam-webster.com... .