BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is generally immoral.

On Morality: I agree that some truths appear to be objective such as the shape of the Earth. Since we are limited to the subjective experiences we interpret from our five sense, we can never truly know any objective truth. But, as we have empirical evidence to support the Earth being round, we can conclude that is is. This is not so for morality. There is no empirical evidence showing what is and is not moral. We have some basises for morality such as the Bible, Quran, Torah, the 8 Fold path, so on and so forth, but none of them can be backed by anything more than faith that they are the objective truth. Faith is not empirical evidence. Since we have no way of objectively determining what is and is not moral, we can readily conclude that morals are subjective, or a matter of opinion. I do not have to prove that the fetus is not a living human, just that killing it cannot objectively be considered immoral. Scientific Evidence: I do not dispute that a fetus is alive or that it is human. I just believe this to be irrelevant. Philosophical Argument: Pro speaks of every person's right to life. First I will contend that the fetus is not a person. What makes a person? Is it not having a personality, people that love you, affecting people, emotions, a life? A fetus does not have these things. It doesn't feel anything. Clearly no one cares about it since the mother wants to abort it. We do not have a shortage of adoptable children in the U.S. and especially in other countries. Let's get those children adopted before we add more family-less children to the world. The one person in this situation is the mother, and by forcing her to carry a child, you are putting her life at risk. Pregnancy is an extremely dangerous medical procedure, more so than abortion. Not only is it physically dangerous, but mentally. Carrying a baby for nine months and giving it up can lead to huge mental problems as can taking care of a child you did not want. The mother's future is also at risk. She could easily lose important opportunities career-wise that will not come again. The mother who has people that care about her and has worked for her future is more important than the couple of cells that makes up a human fetus. In our world, it is by no means held up that every human has a right to life. If that were so, we would have no death penalty, nor would we teach soldiers or policemen to kill. When one human threatens the life of another, we destroy it. The fetus does this to the mother, and she is more important. Also, under the U.S. constitution, which we are bound to as Americans, it is deemed unconstitutional to keep someone from having an abortion. You "right to life" is not supported legally, where as a woman's right to her body and to privacy is. Until Pro can prove that humans are of value just for being humans, his argument goes unsupported. It is a mere assertion without anything but opinions to back it.
Abortion is generally immoral.

I wish to debate someone on the morality of abortion. My contention is that abortion is generally immoral. The only situations in which I believe abortions are justified is when the mother's life is in immediate danger (e.g. during ectopic pregnancies) and the child is not yet viable (to where a c-section could be done to save both mother and child).First round will be for acceptanceSecond round will be for opening argumentsThird round will be for rebuttalFourth round will be for rebuttal and closing statements.No semantic arguments, please.
The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Resolved: The United States federal government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.I am going to be con and my opponent will be pro. The burden of proof is shared.Rules:1. All definitions are debatable (not really a rule but this is important)2. No plans or counterplans3. Maintain a discourse-friendly environment that allows for debate (so no forfeits, trolling, deconstructional semantics, etc)4. Follow round structureRound structure:Round 1: Con (me) creates debate, pro (you) gives constructive caseRound 2: I give constructive case, you refute my case [kind of like c-x in PF but it's more of a rebuttal speech]Round 3: I give refutations, you defend from these refutations and say why you wonRound 4: I defend from refutations, you pass this round to allow for equal debate times.
An omnipotent, perfect creator being cannot exist

>>In other words, a perfect being could only exist if at some point he made a decision not to be perfect. No. The necessity to exist isn't contingent on choosing to do something imperfectly but that that option is not limited. As a living breathing human being could I kill myself? Clearly then I would neither being living nor breathing and by many definitions remain human. As such, as a semi-powerful living being I could at some point allow myself to be non-powerful as well as not-alive. I am arguing that the same ability is within the preview of an all-powerful being. Such a being could stop being perfect and stop being all powerful.
An omnipotent, perfect creator being cannot exist

So your argument is that a perfect being could only do the one thing I propose he cannot do by ceasing to be perfect? In other words, a perfect being could only exist if at some point he made a decision not to be perfect. Whose argument are you trying to prove? I would also argue that failure cannot be a goal. If one succeeded in failing, it would nonetheless be a success due to the fact that the desired goal was accomplished.
An omnipotent, perfect creator being cannot exist

>>You assume that I meant "wrong" in the sense of "evil." I did not. I meant "wrong" in the sense of "incorrect." An acceptable leap on my part. Thank you for clarifying your argument. Your argument is that a perfect all-powerful being could not do something incorrectly? When we say that you did something wrong, we mean to suggest that the predefined goal of a task was not properly achieved. A perfect all-powerful being could not, for example, make a poorly constructed house while intending to make a well constructed house? But being all powerful, such a being clearly could create every half-assed thing possible. Your argument roughly breaks down to the idea that there can be no desync between the goals of an perfect all-powerful being and the results of said the implementation of that power? However, clearly there is no goal impossible to do for such a creator being. In short your argument breaks down to the premise that a perfect all-powerful being cannot fail. This is however false, all such a being would need to do is stop being perfect and all-powerful and it would fail all the time. If failure were the goal of such a being, that failure would be quickly realized... and if it weren't... paradoxically... it would be. If such a being simply intended to fail it would. As such doing something wrong is well within the range of talents for the all-powerful.
An omnipotent, perfect creator being cannot exist

My argument is simple. The existence of a perfect, omnipotent creator is impossible because the very idea implies that a being can do everything and anything. In other words, there is NOTHING he cannot do. However, the very truth of that statement is prohibitive, restrictive of the aforementioned creator. If he (assuming for the purposes of the simplicity a male persona) cannot do anything wrong, that itself makes him incapable of something. He would therefore be imperfect.
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

There have been have around 5,000 generations according to science and about 50 generations according to religious perspectives. All of these past new comers have kept the world turning and sometimes made it a whole better place. Questions like this have been asked by older adults about a few years before WW1 about how the new ones will survive through not one but two of the most horrific wars the world has ever seen. They ended up becoming the great generation. No we have this concept of Gen X, Y, and Z that is just there to scare people and get some steam up in the air about the end. We always have created a sense that on a certain date or area of time the end will arrive but it never does. This is because nobody knows but we make our selves feel better that way. So since we always have a sense of ending or an event coming up through the cracks it is bet to assume that this Gen Z and not taking care of this planet is ludicrous. According to history and natural human nature this is false. We have a certain time approaching us different from the rest but like always our new off spring will get through it like all the others before. If anything does go wrong it will be nature and not nurture. There is no sense of that this generation is getting dumber and no sense that it has become non-productive (sexual wise) so no worries there. Also kids still have some drive to work, to take care of the environment and prosper up the economic ladder to succeed. And dreams are all you need to achieve. This whole concept is a fake sense of reality and just a conspiracy makers wet dream.
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

Hey there! I accept your challenge and will be arguing for.But as you did not specify the round formats I will assume:R1: acceptanceR2: contention [no rebuts]R3: contention/rebuttalR4: rebuttal [no new]R5: rebuttal/conclusion [no new]I look forward to this debate.—haha this is gonna be interesting as like you, i'm all for con
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

Rebuttals:I believe you've overlooked that 'wrong direction' has been specified, so therefore I will have to boringly repeat that it is a reduced participation in things like civil service and less interest in things such as politics as well as other factors which would lead to a deficiency in leadership. Over-reliance on technology has led to increased impatience, diminished empathic connection between persons and lack of experience involving larger social situations—all of which will lead to a deficiency in leadership. Many of today's teenagers have the resources and potential to reach out to the world and increase their knowledge of politics, yet are utterly apathetic. An ageing population can also cause a deficiency in leadership, but that is the tip of the iceberg. This is the wrong path the world will be led to, as defined by the above.On the other hand, your claim that 'there will be no problem with this next generation' is entirely a sweeping statement. There are always problems with every generation—but the situations differ. This generation seems to have a more intense one that strays from the conventional ways and off into the wilderness. As of the current, the 'wild' is not simply unconventional, but coddled, incompetent and lackadaisical as well.Bull markets do not last for eternity. A huge natural disaster may well cause a recession. You cannot accurately predict the future. What's your point?Conclusion:To conclude my argument, generation Z is the generation of change. As of the current, it isn't adapting very well to all the changes in lifestyle. There are major issues of general self-servingness, inability to endure the more difficult challenges, over-reliance in technology and selective ignorance. Even those matters aside, unless Gen Z starts focusing on their work ethic, all the ambition and vision in the world isn't going to help them steer the ship right.leadership deficiency (how it's bad): http://www.clomedia.com...over reliance on technology: http://teenlife.blogs.pressdemocrat.com...natural disaster, recession: http://colorlines.com...Yes, thank you too ^^ And apologies for the late submissions.
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

There will be no problem with this next generation. Even if numbers in civil services drop they will have little effects on society. I agree that overall attitudes have changed but because of reality people will form to it. As of what your saying you imply nothing that can cause our planet to be brought in the wrong direction. We are currently in a bull market and goodness is still in abundance with charities and so on. Thanks for the debate.
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

Rebuttal: Of course, but wouldn't women who marry at age 18 (in the past) have more years to bear more children than those who marry in their late 40s? Besides, life expectancy now is not what it may be in the future. In fact, multiple research has shown and estimated that due to rising obesity levels leading to incurable diseases such as diabetes, increase in life expectancy has slowed and may well decrease in the next few decades, despite improvements in techonology and healthcare. We will be facing a serious problem of aging population in many places. Regarding your '3rd world kids not getting education' point, it isn't rebutting anything I mentioned. I did say that they are self-serving, I did not state nor otherwise imply that the generation is determined, ambitious or self-disciplined. Quite the opposite, actually. Unfortunately, in round 3, I have already defined 'wrong path' as a reduced participation in things like civil service and less interest in things such as politics as well as other factors which would lead to a deficiency in leadership. decreasing life expectancy: http://www.nejm.org... http://www.loyolamedicine.org...
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

To refute the claim that Gen Z will wait longer to bear kids and then hence less time. The general life expectancy for a child born today is about 80. So that women will be able to have kids in their late 40's to early 50's. The issue surrounding poor 3rd world kids not getting education has been happening for the last 300 hundred years where Americans and West Europeans have taken over the science realm and improved society. America has always have a lack of education persistence but now today most kids will go to college and be the first in their families to go. You say Gen Z is savvy and you are correct and also with self interest overall. But this is what the world needs people with grit that will stop at nothing to achieve their own private goals and let the dream of a better life for them and their children come true. So as I state again I see no major claim that gives me the notion that says the world will go into chaos because of self loving tech savvy children. Wrong direction = Global chaos http://www.bls.gov... http://data.worldbank.org...
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

You can blame bad parenting, to president bush, but the fact is ideologies and customs will still exist through any generation. Kids today will still be forced to work unless they choose to be homeless, and I bet they will still choose to reproduce. If this generation is as bad as people say and the facts are clear, no matter what the next one will carry them through. The next generation is still going to face the reality of adulthood and will be literally forced to take action and responsibility. Gen Z may be brought up with bad manners and may have a low self of work ethic but that will have almost zero effect on the world. Also you talk of kids that remind m much of American children. There is another world out there with kids in other countries that have great work ethic and strive because of their current situation at home. Even if these things come to be somewhat true there is really nothing they can about it. It would hard to have a lazy generation really lead the world into chaos like the title of this debate proclaims. They might not want to change and start careers but the world our ancestors set up kind of forces to adapt to the current environment. Also there is no mass change in ideology or lifestyle unless you can point out that will take planet earth into the wrong direction. And also As I pointed out not all kids especially in other countries where they are force to work with manners and discipline at age 7.
Gen Z will lead the world in the wrong direction.

My point to this argument is that Generation Z has been much slacker in both their work and attitude as compared to the older generations. These are a few reasons why:Kids are nowadays getting more incompetent and reliant on others. Many of the stricter traditions have been lost or given way to complaints from multiple parents because their child found the traditions too unbearable. It is these traditions that actually prepare the generation for the challenges ahead. I do not mean traditions as , but rather the older system that encourages one to endure no matter the cost and pursue to the ends of their goals. For example, uniformed extra curricular activities such as scouts or girls' brigade have been much less intense in their training because of complaints brought about by the younger generation. The older generation was able to complete their courses –with much difficulty and perserverance, yes, but they completed it–, but the newer generation Z would rather find excuses to escape than endure through the challenges. It is not that they are unable accomplish what their seniors did—it is that they don't want to–plus they have the choice to not do it. And that makes all the difference. Furthermore, most of them are ignorant and unaware of events in the current world, especially those of the generation living in larger countries such as the USA. With the introduction of advanced gadgets such as the iPad and social media such as Twitter, Generation Z has been more focused on the screens of their petty, individual lives than of the surrounding world. Globalisation may have occurred throughout this shrinking globe, but it, along with the amazing innovation of the Internet, is being sorely underused or misused by the majority of this new generation. Besides, these gadgets result in an increased reliance on technology. It is perfect okay, actually, in general, to rely on technology for that is what technology is created for. But sometimes, it gets way overboard. I have seen many of my classmates burst into tears at the confiscation of their phones and ten year olds walking around the mall glued to their Nintendo screens for hours. Going home, most teenagers spend entire afternoons on online multiplayer games instead of pushing their learning limits and gather more general information. Even at age two, toddlers are playing games on iPhones during mealtimes. Fewer in the generation are able to see the general picture as opposed to simply following the system that has been created for them. Pampering has suppressed their hunger for knowledge and change. Of course, there are a small percentage who are well-informed and dedicated to helping others, but most of them don't care about things outside their spectrum. Every generation has their batch of sheep, but it has grown in this one. It is hard to deny that there are too few true hard workers and a lot more whiners. All in all, unless Generation Z pulls up their socks and start to deal with their lives sensibly, the world will ultimately be dominated with a generation of incompetent, self-serving and inexperienced leaders.
Nothing has its own color

When I say nothing has its own color I am merely saying that, due to the fact that the sun is the source of how we see things, you can not say that an object is purple and have it stand in all conditions. If you look at a red apple at noon when the sun is directly above the apple it will portray a different shade then when it is dawn or dusk. Nothing has its own color in the sense that when you define something by its color that description cannot permanently stand. Color - "the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue." This is the same definition that you portrayed. It clearly states that color is seen due to the light reflected by the object. Therefor, if that light is to change it's angle or its composition it would change the color of the object. The phrase, "Nothing has its own color," can stand true. And since you like definitions: Own- "to maintain one's position or condition" An object does not always maintain the same color in appearance. I believe that you were using the wrong definitions to your advantage as I never did say that you cannot classify objects on their color I merely said that the color that the sun provides for us in the day is not the only one that is capable of being seen. A white piece of paper does not appear white when there is no sunlight. I rest my case.
Nothing has its own color

Since my opponent did not post any definitions, I will take it upon myself to do so. Nothing – Nonexistent Color - “the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.” Now then, my opponent’s arguments are completely, and utterly, logically incoherent. My opponent is Pro for nothing has color. However, “nothing” can’t have color because “nothing” is the lack of existence of something. Color is an attribute only an existing thing can have, but because “nothing” is nonexistence in itself, it can’t have color. My opponent seems to go completely off topic, because he starts to argue that objects don’t have one specific color because of the way light reflects off of it. I argue that “nothing” does not have its own color because color cannot be attributed to something that does not exist. You’re move, Pro. :D
Nothing has its own color

Nothing has its own color. You may say that a shirt is white or a book is red bu it's not. The colors that we have names for are not the colors of objects they're the colors of hues. If you look at a so called 'white' piece of paper in the dark does it appear white? No. It appears black or gray. Same as a black rock. When you hold it to the sun does it appear black? No. It appears a lighter gray. The things that we have named with colors are only named that way because of the way the sun reflects off of the surface of objects. The colors we see are only the colors that the sun provides for us. If we had a different star in our sky, made at a different size or composed of different chemicals, we would not see each color as it is. Colors are nothing but a temporary description.
Nothing has its own color

My opponent never contended to my definition of "nothing" until the final round.All my opponent did was repeat his logically incoherent argument which I already rebutted twice.My opponent dropped all my arguments, whereas I properly responded to his. My opponent unjustly attempts to win this debate by changing the definition that had already been established, and doesn't even respond to the arguments I presented through the entire debate. Good debate Pro. umad?
Nothing has its own color

My opponent has taken my argument in a different perspective than it was intended. in this definition of the word nothing, which I should point out in the number ONE definition on dictionary.com, Nothing- no thing; not anything suggests that I was saying that no thing on it's own has its own color. Now let me fill in theses two definitions as well: Color - "the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue." Own- "to maintain one's position or condition" No thing can maintain the same measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light at all times; because the reflected light may change therefor changing the hue, or color. I RE-REST MY CASE