BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

" The difference is a fertilized egg is a human life, An unfertilized egg is not. " - Explain how it is a human life when it has no sentience nor any level of intelligence. " My opponent has just lied. People in coma's cannot feel pain. People in a coma are completely unresponsive. They do not move, Do not react to light or sound and cannot feel pain. " - This statement is false, My opponent is referring to people in vegetable states whom are brain dead, NOT people in coma's. There is substantial evidence that people in coma do feel pain just the same way as healthy people do. " Can I go around killing people in a coma? They are completely unresponsive. That means it doesn't have any sentience. " - Once again people in coma's whom aren't in vegetable states do feel pain. Even so I already stated that I believe that only the family can give consent to the killing of someone in a vegetable state. Sources, - https://www. Newscientist. Com. . . . - https://www. Sciencemag. Org. . . - https://www. Theonion. Com. . .
Abortion

- What is the difference between a just recently fertilized egg or an unfertilized egg? The difference is a fertilized egg is a human life, An unfertilized egg is not. - False, People in coma's have the ability to feel pain, Therefore they have a right to life. Even if the person couldn't feel pain, I would be fine with his family killing him if they give their consent. If however the family isn't fine with the person dying, Than I don't feel like anyone else has the right to kill him. First of all, That is just cruel, But that is beside the point. My opponent has just lied. People in coma's cannot feel pain. People in a coma are completely unresponsive. They do not move, Do not react to light or sound and cannot feel pain. http://www. Healthtalk. Org/peoples-experiences/nerves-brain/family-experiences-vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states/what-coma-and-what-vegetative-state - No, It's not a human life, It doesn't have sentience nor any level of intelligence. Just because it has the potential to become a human, Doesn't give it a right to life. I will return to the coma argument. Can I go around killing people in a coma? They are completely unresponsive. That means it doesn't have any sentience. Sentience is the ability to perceive one's environment, And experience sensations such as pain and suffering, Or pleasure and comfort. "Someone who is in a coma is unconscious and has minimal brain activity. " -brainfoundation. Org. Au/disorders/coma
Abortion

" Human life starts at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the ovum)" - What is the difference between a just recently fertilized egg or an unfertilized egg? There is no difference neither have sentience nor any intelligence. Why would I care about something that has no intelligence or sentience? I mean by that logic you would be killing trillions of lives daily due to bacteria. " So, You"re going to draw the line at the heartbeat " - Um no I specifically stated I draw the line when the baby has no sentience nor any intelligence. See statements like these are why I don't think you read my argument. " Okay, Well, What about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them? " - False, People in coma's have the ability to feel pain, Therefore they have a right to life. Even if the person couldn't feel pain, I would be fine with his family killing him if they give their consent. If however the family isn't fine with the person dieing, Than I don't feel like anyone else has the right to kill him. " It is a human life and has moral value. " - No it's not a human life, It doesn't have sentience nor any level of intelligence. Just because it has the potential to become a human, Doesn't give it a right to life. "There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker, They need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. " - I already stated previously that while sentience is more important, The person still has a level of intelligence and therefore has a right to life.
Abortion

To be clear, I read your argument. I was trying to prove a point. My argument will have nothing to do with the potential to life. I will prove that it is a life. I agree that having an unwanted child can potentially be harming. However, There are alternatives. Premise 1: Murdering humans is wrong Premise 2: Human life starts at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the ovum) Conclusion: Abortion at any time after conception is wrong Fetus is a human life and has moral value. A first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, It has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, It will grow into a baby. So the real question is, Where do you draw the line? So, You"re going to draw the line at the heartbeat " because it"s very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat? There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker, They need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. Are you going to do it based on brain function? Okay, Well, What about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them? " The problem is if you draw any line other than the inception of the child, You end up drawing a false line that can be applied to people who are adults. I believe we can both agree that an adults life has intrinsic value. As for sentient, If you are in a coma from which you may awake, Can I stab you? Below is the chronological development of a baby up to 5 months. 5 months was the "feel free to kill this baby" deadline according to you. 1st week (1st month) Already has different DNA Sex of baby is determined. Genetic traits are determined. Embryo travels from fallopian tube to the uterus. 2nd week (1st month) Egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus. Placenta develops. 3rd week (1st month) Heart begins to develop, 18-25 days. Brain begins to develop. Intestinal tract begins to develop. 4th-5th weeks (1st month) Vertebra begins to develop. Blood flow begins. Eye development begins. Arm and leg development begins. The umbilical cord begins to form. 6th week (1-2 months) Fingers and the toes appear. Nose and ears develop. Joints are developing. 7th week (1-2 months) All essential organs are developing. Eyelids form. 8th week (2 months) Muscle contraction occurs. Facial features become more prominent. Heart has four chambers. 9th-12th week (2-3 months) The baby is about 3 inches long. The neck develops. Arms and legs begin to lengthen. Genitals are well defined. 13th-16th weeks (3-4 months) The baby is about 6 inches. Hair begins to develop. The baby moves. Lungs develop. If female, The ovaries contain about 2 million eggs. The face is more developed. The baby can suck its thumb. 17th-20th weeks (4-5 months) The baby is about 8 inches. Eyebrows form. Nails on fingers and toes form. Movement can be felt by mother. The circulatory system is working. Swallowing begins to occur It is a human life and has moral value. There is no changing that.
Abortion

" What makes it not human? " - I don't know if you even read my argument because I stated that what makes someone human is their sentience or intelligence if a human being has neither than why should you care about its existence? If your counter-argument is that the fetus has the potential to be a life, Then you should be against mothers not fertilizing their eggs or masturbation. " When is it right to murder that kid? " - At this point, I don't think my opponent even read my counter argument at all, Which by the way is very poor conduct because I specifically stated that I am fine with abortions being used when the baby isn't sentient or if the mother was raped. " A humans life is worth more than somebody's inconvenience. " - Having an unwanted child isn't just an " inconvenience", It potentially can ruin someone's life. For example, Many young teens lives could be ruined because of unwanted pregnancy as raising a child is very costly and time-consuming which may, In turn, Ruin a young women's chances at receiving higher education or being able to live above the poverty line. The bottom line is my opponent is asking questions that I already answered in my previous argument, Which shows to me that he didn't even read my counter-argument which in turn is very poor conduct.
Abortion

Hello, Sorry I forgot to specify. You have done a fine job in displaying your argument. I will do my best to debunk it. What makes it not human? Is it ok to kill the baby at 14 weeks when the heart is pumping blood? How about 1 month when bone marrow starts to form? What about 9-10 weeks when the teeth and fingernails start forming? How about 2 months when the baby can turn its head and make faces and hiccup? When is it right to murder that kid? As for rape, The court has said that a death penalty is to much for the criminal, Why should the baby die? I could see arguments if the mothers life is at stake. Then, It might be justifiable. A humans life is worth more than somebody's inconvenience.
Abortion

Because my opponent is not specifying what abortions are ok and which ones aren't, I am going to assume they are against ALL abortions in any context. That being said I'll begin with my argument of why abortion is justified for most scenarios. " Abortion is wrong because it is killing a human " - Abortion is not killing if it's done within the first 5 months of pregnancy as in the first 5 months, The fetus isn't even sentient nor has any levels of intelligence. Therefore why should you care about a being that doesn't experience pain nor has a consciousness? If your counter-argument is that at that point in development the fetus has a potential to be alive then you should be against masturbation or women not getting their ovulated eggs fertilized, Which in and of itself is utterly ridiculous. - Abortion can also be justified if the mother was raped or if a condom breaks. While these events are rare, They still happen and denying an abortion in these scenarios are unfair and possibly deadly if the women are underage. Case and point, Abortions are justifiable in certain scenarios and therefore should be legal in those situations whether it be the women were raped, If the mother would die in the baby's birth, Or if it's within the first 5 months when the fetus isn't sentient. Sources, https://www. Sciencemag. Org. . .
Abortion

" This was my first debate online so being formal is not something I am used to. I fully expect to lose this. I would like to offer a rematch to my opponent. I made a lot of rookie mistakes. " - Its no problem, When I first started using debate. Org around 6 months ago I made tons of mistakes too in regards to spelling and formatting my arguments clearly and logically. - I am open to a rematch, Just send me a debate challenge when you're ready. - Anyways back to the debate, "Just because they don't have any sentience, Doesn't mean it has moral value or is a human life. " - Without the ability to feel pain, Pleasure, Or have any level of consciousness, It is hard to argue the being is even alive. Especially when the baby doesn't have any level of intelligence either, By this logic you murder trillions of lives daily due to micro bacteria in the world. " Why can only the family give consent to killing someone in a vegetable state if they have no sentience? I should be able to go around killing anyone who doesn't have any sentience. " - Well the family should have to give consent to the person being put to death as the person may mean something to the family whether or not it has sentience or not. If the family gives consent to the beings death, Than I believe it would be perfectly fine. If however the family doesn't want the person to die, Than the person should be kept alive for the family's sake. " Then to when you just came out of the womb, Then 1 sec before your mom gave birth. Is it still you? " - At that point I have consciousness, And the ability to feel pain and pleasure, So yes it is me and I have a right to life. " Go back 5 months. Is it still you? " - Well no because at that point I lacked sentience and intelligence. If my parents wanted to they could have aborted me and it would have been justified. Closing Argument: - Abortions are indeed justifiable in many circumstances such as if the mother was raped, If a condom breaks, Or if the baby isn't sentient. - If however the baby is sentient and the mother wasn't raped or wouldn't die from the pregnancy, Than it would be immoral and wrong to abort the child. - 5 months is enough time to discovery the pregnancy and enough time to make a clear decision of whether or not to abort the fetus.
Selectively Inclusive Cities and/or Groups are Just.

Yes, it does say that "all men are created equal..." and are entitled to "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However, groups are generally created to further enhance and spread these unalienable rights...to whom they select. So, the groups do not violate the Declaration's clause of equality because it upholds the "unalienable rights." Deciding to reject those who could possibly hinder the group's ability to pursue those unalienable rights does not connote inequality, rather it upholds justice and the Declaration of Independence by preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Selectively Inclusive Cities and/or Groups are Just.

Being in a group does not insure the acquisition of those unalienable rights, but rather increases the odds of such happening and magnifies the effects. Conversely, not being a part of a group (or being rejected from one) does not violate the individual's rights nor does it eliminate the possibility of them every gaining their rights." It does violate the individual's civil rights as defined by the Constitution of the USA. In brief, it is unjust to exclude people from groups, it is also illegal.
Selectively Inclusive Cities and/or Groups are Just.

Being in a group does not insure the acquisition of those unalienable rights, but rather increases the odds of such happening and magnifies the effects. Conversely, not being a part of a group (or being rejected from one) does not violate the individual's rights nor does it eliminate the possibility of them every gaining their rights. Exclusion from a group does no more to the individual's rights than remove the group as a means of achieving such liberties. There are still countless ways for an individual to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness" without inclusion into a certain group.
Destroy Yourself

The entire point of the sources was so that my opponent would not have chosen a truism argument such as the one he chose in this debate(or near-impossible-to-argue-against argument). If my opponent could not have found 3 sources AGAINST his side, that means that his side was too biased, too true, too impossible to argue against. I said that we would only argue against the sources in round 2, but I didn't say I allowed my opponent to NOT post any sources against his position within round two. My opponent has broken the rules posted and has not posted any sources against him. I will be more clear next time I post this topic. We may tie the debate if you wish. I don't want to argue about this since you didn't follow the rules (but admittedly the rules were confusing)Good debate, and let the judges decide what to do.
Destroy Yourself

I thank 9spaceking for posting this unique debate (Actually, when you think about it, this isn't really all that different from a regular debate). The topic will be "The Earth is Not Flat". Since I am Con, I will be arguing for this notion, since that's the opposite of what Con is, therefore what I have to prove. I will be using sources, and logic, to show that the Earth is not flat. 9spaceking will have to show that the Earth is indeed flat, via sources and logic. I'm looking forward to a wonderful debate!
Destroy Yourself

In each of the following rounds, both pro and con must post (at least) 3 sources that are clearly against his/her side. For example, if my opponent is gun-control, she/he must post 3 sources, or arguments, that are anti-gun control. (And consequently, I will have to post 3 sources that are pro-gun control and point out why they are wrong) The debaters will explain precisely what the article or argument is saying that shows it is against their side. Then, theyrefutes the source to the best of their ability. The debaters may point out the credibility of the source (or logic of the argument), the bias, or contradictory information. The voters will vote upon the following:-How strong the original source/logic/argument was (a satirical, trolling article from the onion versus an editorial by a well-reknowned newspaper writer) -How strong the refutation was (merely saying that the article was wrong versus actually giving evidence to refute the article). Over the rounds, the debaters may challenge the opponent's sources, and try to analyze just how weak/strong the given and refuting sources are, and even address the opponent's arguments directly. Good luck and have fun.
Genetic Modified foods are Organic.

Thanks for the speedy reply bluesteel. First matter of buisness is correcting that citation error. I didn't realize I had not cited it but here it is now. . http://www.fda.gov... My apologies if it was confusing or didn't make sense. You will find all the info I used under the "Ingredients List" Sub My opponent has convinced me of his side of the debate. I concede. Thanks bluesteel for a good one.
Genetic Modified foods are Organic.

This is an argument that people who claim that genetically modified foods are inorganic. All Organic labels are common in grocery markets and foodstuff stores. A foodstuff recieves the title of "Organic" if it compiles to the FDA standards which are pretty rigerous involving no use of pesticides, growth hormones(including Genetic Modification), and antibiotics. Foods that are genetically modified are organic. Genetic Modification in foodstuffs is an on going issue on the harmful effects or "non-natural" process the food undergoes. Many falsely believe that harmful substances are added while genetic modification. Plant genes are modified in test tubes and gene modification is different than hormones because as hormones increase the growth rate of cells through stimulation, genes are naturally produced through cell division. Genetically modified foods are every bit as organic as organic foods. Genes in a plant were certainly never meant to be tampered with, however it has kept insects from infesting the plant fields and prevented mass outbreaks of low agricultural food supplies. It has grown salmon almost five times the size it normally is and who can argue that that's a bad thing? By combining the genes of a tomato plant and that of a another may improve growth rate and provide disease resistances. Not only has genetically modified foods been a huge leap forward in the agricultural technology department, it continues to make food growth more efficient and it saves space. In Japan, where space is limited, people cultivate rice because rice is the most efficient crop. With genetic modification, Japan can keep its large population well fed and as a sidenote, they have the longest lifespan on average.
Stealing for survival must not be punished.

I don"t believe the rich would in any way be forced to help the poor. Instead, they would just massively increase their security. If we"re talking about "extremely poor" people, on the edge of starvation, I doubt they have the slightest chance of even climbing their fences. If it went to extremes, there would be bloodbaths, armed security guards against starving citizens, they don"t stand a chance. Besides, we"re not just talking about raising taxes for the rich and spend that money on the poor. We"re talking about people being legally allowed to intrude another human being"s residence, and just take whatever they wanted to take, possibly items of personal value? Then what, the rich would have to buy a new TV every second day? And keep anything with a personal value in a hidden bunker? While I agree that a lot of state officials waste too much money, allowing people to raid their home won"t help. It will just make their everyday work more difficult, and they would likely grow a hate towards the poor. Think about this on a long-term, the poor families would then raise their children as thieves, and eliminate any potential educational future.
Stealing for survival must not be punished.

I am not saying that poor people should be exempt from liability for theft. I am saying that only people who are way below the poverty level, people who has no other options but steal for survival, should be pardoned. Self-defence in the doctrine of at least English law means that person can act outside the law to prevent injury to oneself. Is not death by starvation even worse than just injury? Why we need to punish person who has chosen to steal and survive rather than die? You are right saying that rich people would not let the extremely poor people to steal their things. Rich people would have to act. They would not be able to penalize extremely poor people in court. Rich would have to press government, to form governmental and nongovernmental organizations to take measures that would not let people to fall in desperate economic state. This understanding that your wealth depends on whether there are or not extremely poor people in your country is a very strong motivation for rich people to get rid of extreme poverty in their country. You are right saying that rich people may view poor people as "pests, raiding the rich". Better if they have this view and act to prevent poor from becoming extremely poor than not noticing them at all, as it is nowadays. In every country, there are very rich people and at least some layer of middle class. I do not know any MP or governor who is very poor. Not only are these people wealthy but they have power. Often, they do not use this power to improve the economic situation in their countries for their citizens. They only would act when they feel they could personally suffer from it. May be in the beginning we will have cases when extremely poor people (with no other options) would steal from poor people. But rich people will interfere very soon. They would have no other option but to take measures to bring people from extreme poverty at least to the level of poverty. It still would not be good but it would surely be better then what we have now.
Stealing for survival must not be punished.

First of all, the 95% figure is very unreliable, and most likely inaccurate. (read source below) But obviously there is a lot of countries with extremely ineffective systems and few available jobs, but I would argue that in those places, especially, it would be a disaster if everyone stole from each other. Many poor countries have close to no middle class, to steal from, and they can't just steal from the rich, so they will have to still from other poor, which is an evil circle. Source: https://africacheck.org...- unreliable/ Stealing to survive is not self-defense, unless perhaps the victim is the direct cause of your starvation, which is unlikely. Self-defense is defined as a defense, countering an assailant. Not an attack based on desperation. I strongly disagree on your prediction regarding rich people caring less about themselves and more about the poor, due to your proposition. I believe it would divide the economic classes even more, and the poor would be looked down upon, as pests, raiding the rich. The rich wouldn'tjust let the poor steal their things either, whilst your proposition makes it unpunishable, you can"t take away the rich's right to defend themselves and their belongings.