BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory Organ & Tissue Donations

Rules: 1. Con must not only negate the topic but also successfully defend the pro-life position (I will also be taking a pro-life position) on abortion and defend why such a position is consistent with opposition to mandated organ donations. 2. Con must hold that abortion is wrong because it kills life as at least one of the reasons for opposing abortion. 3. You must hold that abortion should at least result in a jail sentence. Round 1: There is no higher value than life. Even liberty must be put below it because liberty is dependent on life. If you are not alive you can not enjoy liberty. Political communities form to create a collective guarantee of various rights and as the right to life is the most important then the political community should guarantee this right to people waiting for organs and other tissues (blood, spinal fluid, anything a patient needs to stay alive) to be donated by mandating that people donate their organs to people in need. When it is possible for people to save lives and we don't we are effectively choosing that some people die, and that is murder. This would apply in cases where someone has died and their organs need to be harvested. Everyone who dies should have their organs removed and used for donation. They are dead and do not need them anymore, so their organs should be used to save lives. It would also apply to living people who can part with organs or tissues without it causing death or any serious health problems other than possibly some temporary minor problems similar in severity to those a pregnant woman goes through during 9 months of pregnancy and these problems last that long or less. This would include for example, kidney donation because people can live and function fine with just one kidney, and kidney failure almost always involves both kidneys at once so it's not like you need your spare just in case you get kidney failure. By not doing this we are all effectively collectively complicit in the murder of people dying waiting for a kidney. Some exceptions may be made if there are serious health consequences that have a significant enough chance of happening (let's put the bar at the sort of health problems and amount of risk a woman may face if she continues through a pregnancy, assuming she has access to at least basic medical care), but otherwise you should have to donate. If there are any special circumstances that give an individual a higher risk than normal they should be granted an exception only if that amount of individual variation in risk factors would also be held to give a woman an exception to laws against abortion. We should also ban abortion because abortion violates the right to life of certain persons. One can not be consistent and say we should ban abortion but not implement my suggested mandatory organ donation policy. Stipulations: This would not involve actually physically forcing people on to the operating table. Refusal would send you to jail. The extent of sentencing would not be within the scope of this debate.
Should Russia be allowed to rejoin G7

The G7 countries are the countries with the 7 highest GDPs.https://data.worldbank.org... that the top 7 with their GDP in millions are: United States 18,624,475.00 China 11,199,145.16 Japan 4,949,273.34 Germany 3,477,796.27 United Kingdom 2,650,850.18 France 2,465,453.98 India 2,263,792.50These countries are in the G7. Russia is #14 on the list. They don't beling in the G7 club.
Abortion should be illegal.

1. My original statement was that people are unfit to have kids, I should have gone more in depth. People can still enjoy the feeling and sensation of intercourse, and sometimes unplanned pregnancies can happen. And when they do happen they're unexpected and uncalled for. There is over 40% of unexpected pregnancies every year. And having a baby is sometimes not right for people at a certain age. If you do get pregnant at age 18 or younger. Do you have enough income to feed it? House it? And care for it. Babies a year alone to take care of cost roughly 12,000 dollars a year. https://www.guttmacher.org... https://www.parenting.com... 2. Everything you've mentioned so far is morally and ethically. You mention the process of the abortion and everything about it. I want to talk statistics. If we do say this person is born into the world. They either won't be welcomed or treated well to the household. Many unplanned pregnancies happen 18-29 years old not surprisingly. Depending on the parent and how parents raise this kid. The kid will consume about 3 pounds a day, because some people don't eat the 4 pounds. We will multiply the 3 by 30 and get 90. So this kid eats 90 pounds of food per month in their Child to Senior years. The average life expectancy of the U.S is 78, we'll do our calculations when they're 10. There are 815 months in 68 years. We multiply 90 by 68 and we'll get 73,350 pounds of food. Imagine 5 Asian Elephants stacked up on each other. This will only 60,000 pounds. A human costs so much to take care of. If we had the option to get rid of human life I say don't let it go out of use. Say it's ethical or it isn't. In the end. Humans cost so much, and if we have the option to give someone another chance. Another time to think about what they've done and make better decisions about what happen, this will shape them more into an adult. But for now if someone isn't planning of having a kid, and having a kid might ruin their life. Its up to them. That's why I'm Pro Choice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.precisionnutrition.com... https://www.google.com...
Abortion should be illegal.

I"m going to start off with some good ol" fashioned rebutting. I will list your points and my responses to them. Your First Point: "Some people are unfit to have kids": My Response: No Evidence: I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. If you are unfit to have kids that means that you can"t have kids, and if you can"t have kids then you don't need to get an abortion. So some clarification is needed here, and I would urge you to bring this up in the next round. Your Second Point: "People view abortions as a bad thing. As a thing that"ll kill an unborn baby. Or even as an unethical thing to do." My Response: Is it ethical to kill someone? Of course not. This is horrible. The idea that you have a right to murder a kid just because it"s convenient to you is insanity. Listen to this "method" on how to "legally" kill a baby. "In this method, the cervical muscle ring must be paralyzed and stretched open. The abortionist then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge into the uterus. The suction tears the baby"s body into pieces. The placenta is cut from the uterine wall and everything is sucked into a bottle." This is complete insanity! This is a human as soon as it"s outside the womb, and when it"s inside the womb. You kill it in the womb, and apparently it"s a human right. That is not a human right because that baby is a human and that baby doesn"t have any rights, because someone just decided that the baby"s rights are less important than your right to your own convenience. Despicable! You are literally allowed to kill a baby in the 30-32 week. That is a fully formed child. I"ve seen them 2 of them come out of my wife, and I can tell you that these are not just balls of tissue. These are human beings. It"s not a "termination of pregnancy" it is a termanitation of human life, and the idea that you get to choose that is horrible. We live in America, at least I do, and there are a lot of things that you get to do in life. Look, you get to choose a lot of things in life. You don"t get to choose another human being"s death. So let"s play a little left wing game called "when is it okay to kill this"? Maybe at week 14 when the heart is pumping several quarts of blood? How about week 15 when the baby has an adults" tastebuds, is it ok then? How about month 4 when the bone marrow is starting to form, then can I kill it? So where in here, exactly, is it ok to murder this kid, because you have a little convenience issue. This is completely ridiculous, that it is "legal" to drag a baby out by the feet (except for the head) and stab it with scissors in the throat. Also, the idea that you can kill a human just because it is expensive to raise is a disgrace to America. Your Third Point: "But situations like that are hurting people. People make dumb choices as teens and kids.": My Response: Yes, people make dumb choices but that is their choice. If I kill someone as a teenager I still go to jail. Plus, if you don"t want to have a baby: don"t put that thing, in that place, without that thing on it. Simple. Thanks for accepting I look forward to the next round, Ben
Abortion should be illegal.

Whether if you're religious, or not. Abortions should not be illegal. Why? Because, some people are unfit to even have kids. And plus kids are expensive to raise. People view abortions as a bad thing. As a thing that'll kill an unborn baby. Or even as an unethical thing to do. Personally I think Abortions should be legal. We all have our reasons why we want to use have an abortion. I'm just a male. And if I placed myself in the situation of a pregnant 14 year old. You might choose to have the baby and go through the pain of child birth. Or might not, the problem is. Context, people view abortions as a killing machine. People love viewing it as that. As a Pro Choice I believe that they should be legal. But situations like that are hurting people. People make dumb choices as teens and kids. My Regards, Don
Man is inherently evil

Closing Remarks "I stated from the being that a person when given the choose between helping him self and helping others he would choose him self every time if he was truly untaught by are society."Assuming Pro meant "beginning" instead of "being" and "our society" instead of "are society," I would like to point out that not only do socities teach their own differently according to culture and tradition, but helping the "self" is not limited to selfishness, as it can be within our self-interest to help "others." For instance, rather than choosing to live in lawlessness like the wild animals, we created a social contract, where we respect one another's rights in exchange for the affirmation of our own rights. Pro also stated that man does not learn from another living thing in earlier rounds. I believe I have disproven that claim as well."I showed that Man when given unchecked power abused it. I also showed that when the necessities of life were threatened people have and will forget there moral code previously used for the purpose of survival meaning morals are not something that can stay true in the darkest of times so man was not born with a moral code."Man abusing power does not making all men inherently evil. Also if Pro cannot adequately defend his own definition of morality, we have no reason to deny the "Man" with "unchecked power" is necessarily abusing his power for evil. As Pro has failed to give a sufficient reasoning behind his moral theory, we have no reason to respect it as valid. If morality can be defined as the "greatest good for the most people" or "survival of the species," then none of Pro's arguments have any substance. Indeed, the problem that remains unaddressed is that Pro forces morality into a cage and asserts that this is the true morality simply on the virtue of it being in a cage that he has made. Morality is not something that simple, and Pro has failed to demonstrate why we should reasonably accept his definition."My opponent Misspelled two words form what I can see in their second argument please do not have this take away from my opponents argument as I'm sure I have misspelled a word or used bad grammar above and I would rather you vote based on the arguments below, please remember that the case must havd been proven without a doubt to win as agreed upon above."I agree on this matter as well."Thank I enjoy this argument with my Opponent, I hope they had fun as well and my the best debater win."Likewise, I thank Pro for this debate. And leave the rest to the voters.
Man is inherently evil

Closing RemarksI stated from the being that a person when given the choose between helping him self and helping others he would choose him self every time if he was truly untaught by are society. I showed that Man when given unchecked power abused it. I also showed that when the necessities of life were threatened people have and will forget there moral code previously used for the purpose of survival meaning morals are not something that can stay true in the darkest of times so man was not born with a moral code. My opponent Misspelled two words form what I can see in their second argument please do not have this take away from my opponents argument as I'm sure I have misspelled a word or used bad grammar above and I would rather you vote based on the arguments below, please remember that the case must havd been proven without a doubt to win as agreed upon above.Thank I enjoy this argument with my Opponent, I hope they had fun as well and my the best debater win.
Man is inherently evil

"First of all, I would like to point out that morality does not exist as a physical or natural law. One does not get smitten by god/nature/karma for doing something "evil." Morality by nature is something humans make up and decide, and ethical theories are what we have in regards to how we determine what is or is not ethical/moral. Morality is not instinct alone, it is inherently developed through relationships, meaning it is not a isolated process as Pro argues. Different cultures have different moral codes and customs, the relevant distinction is the process in which this moral code is established. Are we relying on our emotions and intuitions to decide what is moral? Or are we using logic and reason? Is it a mere matter of faith?" I believe the agreed upon stance you took was to prove that goodness and morality in fact is something you are born, well I must prove that Man is evil as in without a moral code at birth. The highlighted text above proves my point man is not born with any code for right and wrong and when coupled with the proof of savage possible a pointed out above I believe I prove that Man is evil at birth as no morals are present at birth."What is absolute power, and how does one attain it? "Man does not need absolute power to abuse it, in the experiment they were given complete control over the "prisoners lives. "I do not see how this proves that people are inherently evil. Yes, sleep-depraivation has side effects that may stall a person's judgment process, but I fail to see how this helps Pro's arguments."The stall judgment processes coupled with the irritability and restlessness(common knowledge to be affects of sleep deprivation) would cause people to affect without morals as when a basic necessity for life is threatened be resort back to primitive unmoral thinking."The goal is not only reproduction but also survival, as reproduction is especially significant if your own genes survive."The goal is reproduction, and keeping offspring alive after that survival is not even necessary. General remarkMy opponent, in attempt to disprove my arguments, fail to bring up one point valid point other then justifying cannibalism with utilitarianism which is more logic based then moral based. I would like to point t out to con that they agreed to this debate and at this point cannot point out unclear terms as that was what the first round was for and I believe I clarified all requested definitions in my first argument. Also Con should watch for mispelled words.
Man is inherently evil

The following is not an argument it is clarifications.What you ought to do is a good definition but I believe we should consider it like this: Man has to choose to help him self or help others collectively for no personal gain, the man has never learned from another living thing and actions are out of instinct pro would say he would help when self every time he is given said optionscon would say we would help every one else every time he is given said options. I hope that clears up any concerns you had. Argument beings here:I believe a baby is born with no sense of morals. A completely unsocialized and untaught human would only help himself and other people that are important to his life(Mate and offspring). Man is evil and when given absolute power over people will take advantage of them and possible even enjoy it, I will cite the Stanford Prison Experiment. Three things humans are programmed to do is eat(and defecate) sleep and reproduce. The goal is the reproduction and eating and sleeping are the needed steps to get there. If any one of this thing are denied humans will not act morally.Case oneIf denied food people will do drastic things even unmoral unthinkably things. I will use the "Holodomor" as an example, during this time of forced famine in the Ukraine many people were arrested because of cannibalism. The most common act of cannibalism was to eat the smallest child.Case Two Studies show that when sleep deprived people take much longer to decide on the morality of something on top of becoming irritable and angry.Stanford Prison Experiment - http://psychology.about.com...Holodomor - http://www.ukrainesf.com...Sleep deprivation study- http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Man is inherently evil

Greetings to Pro. I thank him for instigating this topic. "Man - a human being of either sex; a person"I agree to this definition. "Inherently - no one is born good and good takes ongoing effort to maintain it self"I would simplify ths definition to simply, "bound by its own nature. ""Evil - profound immorality, wickedness"Okay, or just something immoral. "Good - the opposite of evil"Ergo, good is something moral. I would urge Pro to also define moral in the next round, but I believe it to be in the context of "what one ought to do. ""Con must prove with out a doubt that man can be born good"Or morally neutral. "Pro must prove with out a doubt that man is evil and can't be naturaly good. "So we share the burden of proof. Excellent. "NO SymanticsNO allternate definitions of Evil or Man"I believe Pro means "Semantics" and I urge him to watch out for future spelling mistakes, as it is a matter of conduct as well.
Man is inherently evil

Man - a human being of either sex; a personInherently - no one is born good and good takes ongoing effort to maintain it selfEvil - profound immorality, wickednessGood - the opposite of evilCon must prove with out a doubt that man can be born goodPro must prove with out a doubt that man is evil and can't be naturaly good. If both sides fail to do so please do not vote. Time to Argue is twelve hours.9000 CharactersNO SymanticsNO allternate definitions of Evil or Man
is evolution real

Let me first point out that my opponent plagiarized his entire argument from the comments section. The argument he posted was written by masterful whom he copied word for word verbatim off of. Nevertheless, I will address it anyway. What the argument is saying is that if evolution were possible then it would be the result of species competing against one another for food and other essentials for life. If this is true, than how would you explain mutualism between animals? Mutualism, is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, the blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, and at the same time, the oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, this case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. Basically, the oriental sweetlips would have to let a random fish swim in it's mouth without mistaking it for a free meal and intuitively know that it is just coming to clean its teeth. At that exact same moment, the blue streak wrasse would have to independently decide to swim in a random fish's mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, if none of these things happen at the exact same moment, the process won't work. If that seems hard to believe to be chance then just realize that that is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible.
is evolution real

Evolution can been seen in dog breeds which have been bred by artificial selection and proves changes can be made in species over time. Imagine what dog breeds will look like given 10,000 years of this artificial selection. Now try 100 million years!We see viruses adapt to medication rendering the medication useless and creating a new strain of virus. This adaptation is a proof on concept of sorts. Life, cells they both mutate and create 'addition' to the life form. Over time this addition becomes more noticeable and in some cases more complex.You can see in predators and pray, in every eco-system there is an 'arms race' where prey will adapt methods of avoiding, fighting or running away from predators, in turn, this forces the predators to adapt.
God exists Atheists are Fools!

I will put it in bold so you can fully see and I ill also reiterate what I have already said.I fully disbelieve in God or any likelyhood of God Exisiting. I 100% deny him in front of everyone here and watching this debate. I do not believe he is real. I would "Envoke the blood of Jesus" but I cant for 2 reasons. He is dead. his "blood" is actually just wine I will be intrigued to see if pro continues this nonsense. I have grown to find it quite amusing. I am interested to see what gibberesh pro can come up with next.
God exists Atheists are Fools!

Should l repeat my self!Did you do what l told you to do in the beginning of my debate!~You have no guts to deny him thats for sure! In rituals blood is used!l dare you to use the blood of Jesus right now and deny him online infront of the world to be witness.Then l can surely say for sure you don't believe.There fore after l shall give you evidence of his existance!So what l we waiting for con l guess you have cold feet because of the fate you will face after you deny him. Sell your soul to the devil by denying him..My words right now are evidence and proof of his existance.Con will be back online confessing his existance... Most of you are curious because you have not experienced his power in your life! l gave you the evidence which is the blood of Jesus! Envoke his blood and surely you'll be witness to his power! lf pro doesn't confess like l dared him! His just a believer curious to see gods face which is very impossible!