BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion (Fliped)

Webster's isn't my prime source for moral guidance. A fetus is characteristic of being a human because it will become one. It is alive, and the life will continue until a grown and very human organism dies; unless of course, it's aborted. And as for murder being killing "under the conditions specified by law", again, dictionary definitions don't mean anything. Laws can change, but murder is always murder. And I'm not saying that people have to keep children if they don't want them, they can give them up for adoption. And people who already have the means to raise a kid might find they want a child, even if it's unexpected.
Abortion (Fliped)

Most of your arguments here are oversimplification. And rarely do they even explain why Abortion is wrong. You also have no proof that a fetus is a baby. As humans we have know way of knowing much less proving that a fetus is a child. At the earliest stages when almost all abortions are performed the fetus doesn't even have a heart beat and is smaller than a quarter with almost no characteristics of a child. Though I will agree that the fetus is living and is alive, it has no rights of a developed and born human being. It relies soly on the mother and without her cannot live even a few seconds. If you look up the word person in Webster's Dictionary you will find this... "pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people with the social aspect of people" A baby has none of the nature or social aspect of any person. That is why, Thought it is alive, it is not a human or person. That being said abortion cannot be counted as murder because, looking again at Webster's we find murder to mean... the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. That being said we have already determined that a fetus is not a human being because it has no aspects of humans and cannot live without the mother. Finally no one wants to be born into a family that doesn't want it, It would be a miserable life. That is why it is best in some cases to have an abortion. Abortion Should be legal, it is now healthy for the mother and does not involve murder in any way.
Abortion (Fliped)

This is fun! Anyway... Just because something has been done doesn't make it right. Slavery has existed since Ancient Egypt, but I don't think anyone can get behind that. Looking back at history, majority rule hasn't always been the most moral one. A mother's health is important of course, but so is the baby's. And today with advanced medicine and technology, it is easier to ensure a mother's health. And on that note, it is simpler to have a baby today than it was a hundred years ago; not only because of technology but because of cultural trends which make premarital sex and the like more acceptable (and a lot of women have and have had abortions out of fear of the social consequences). A fetus is a baby, which is a person, and we have no right to pick and choose what children we want. Contraception can prevent the problem altogether, and adoption is always a solution for people who can't take care of the child.
Abortion (Fliped)

Thanks for taking the challenge Miserlou :-) we should all be a little open minded right? Here we go... Abortion was legal in the beginning, It was common and thought to be acceptable. The real reason abortion was made illegal was because of health reasons for the Mother. It was common among Native Americans and common in colonial times but in the 1800s laws were passed to stop the procedure. The middle of the 20th century safer cleaner and more advanced procedures came about and in 1973 Roe v. Wade overturned all abortion laws in the United States. Abortion is Natural as the body itself, aborts up to 20 percent of all pregnancies. Obviously in many cases a healthy mother's life could be in danger and many times this comes with a high chance of loosing the baby also. In these cases it is only logical to abort the baby for the sake of the healthy mother.
Abortion (Fliped)

Personally I am against Abortion but to learn more about it I am taking the side of pro-Choice. Here is my challenge: Would someone Pro-choice debate me as pro-life??? May sound crazy but maybe we can both learn a little more about the topic. Since I have not given any stance on it we can just debate the last two rounds. In the first round just tell a little about what you think about this debate then we can debate the last two rounds! Thanks and have fun!!!
There are situations conceivable when torture can be justified.

My opponent says that I broke the rules by defining semantics as something different than he expected. However, by the current definition of semantics, then I have not broken any rules. I do agree that my argument of torture having a definition that doesn't include causing pain because one is forced to doesn't work, though my opponent could have provided a better definition. My opponent then argues that the situation is logically possible. This means that nothing can stop me from revolting, possibly using the instruments given to him to torture the man, or the gun that I have. My opponent decided in the last round to finally mention that they took my weapons:" Your captors have stripped you of weapons and any other means of retaliation." How was I supposed to know that? The third round is too late to add something like that to the resolution. Also, they then give me instruments of torture. These should be good ingredients in a revolt. My opponent also claims that the fact that he declared me not allowed to kill the man as reason that I am not allowed to kill him. This involves an external, supernatural factor. In that case, it would be just to break this rule if it is all that forces me to torture the man. My opponent then says that they are all allowed, because they would fit in one of the two allowed categories. This is completely contradictory: "My opponent created three bogus options for himself as escape methods to avoid the resolution, none of which are permitted because I put a rule in my first round that these wouldn't be allowed." "Consequentially every choice conceivable would either fall under one of these two categories." This is also contradictory because my opponent claims that no matter what I do, if it does not include me torturing the man for five minutes, the captors will kill 100 others and the first man. This means that even if I kill them all, it seems that they'll come back to life and spread the torture. This is physically impossible. In conclusion, torture is not just in the situation given by my opponent, because the situation is impossible as my opponent describes, and there are other options that could be considered just. My opponent has never argued that these other options aren't just, just that they are not allowed by the magical rule that restricts my every move. This is the leg I stand on. My opponent's only argument seems to be that there are no other options. I have clearly proved this false. Thank you.
There are situations conceivable when torture can be justified.

It is fully within my rights to choose the word used for the definition. Incredible is a definition of inconceivable. I can ignore the other definitions if so I choose. My opponent claims that nothing in his argument is against physical possibility. He clearly states: "Moreover, creating alternative choices to this situation is not allowed." The only reason for it to not be allowed is if there is some other force that prevents me from taking such actions. There is no way in which I am conceivably disallowed from choosing other, better options. My opponent also says that I haven't defined conceivable in my second round. This would be impossible, as this is my second round. I shall now prove him false: Conceivable: Antonym: Inconceivable. [1] If it is inconceivable, then it is not conceivable. My opponent then states that I am using a straw man argument. As I have shown, my opponent is indeed insisting that I am disallowed from using other options due to an undefined supernatural force. After reviewing my opponent's definition of torture, I have found that I would not be able to torture him as the definition requires: "Torture- For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession," I don't want information from him, "punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed," I'm not punishing him because of the faults of him or others, "or intimidating or coercing him or a third person," I would not try to intimidate him or coerce him, "or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity," I am not discriminating against him. Thus, I can't torture him as my opponent requires. Conclusion: My opponent insists that there is no restriction on my actions. If this is so, then I start a revolt with the gun I smuggled in. If this is not so, then a supernatural force is restricting me, making the situation inconceivable. Either way, the torture would not be just as other options must be present. Thank you. [1] http://thesaurus.reference.com...
There are situations conceivable when torture can be justified.

========== Contention 1: Given my opponents definition his argument still fails ========== "Inconceivable- not conceivable; unimaginable; unthinkable unbelievable; incredible. " - mongoose (from his source) . http://dictionary.reference.com... By focusing on only one or two words in this definition you are guilty of observation selection. You picked one aspect of your definition that was convenient for your argument and ignored the others. ----> "Clearly, my opponent's argument isn't feasible. "- mongoose Feasibility- The state of being feasible or possible. . http://en.wiktionary.org... My situation is completely possible. It doesn't violate the laws of physics and it would certainly be possible as long as there are at least 110 people on the planet. Since there are at least 6 billion people on the planet I win this point. And since my opponent didn't define conceivable in his second round I will define it below. Conceivable - within the realm of possibility. ----> "The idea of a supernatural force forbidding me from doing anything besides torture the man or nothing seems quite impossible, especially because it forbids me from breathing, sitting, or standing. " My argument doesn't assume that you are utterly helpless by a supernatural force either explicitly or implicitly. This entire point is nothing more than a straw man argument. [1] I will appeal to the fairness of the audience. Nowhere in my first round did I mention the intervention of supernatural forces or any logically compulsory form of behavior. By refusing to comply with a demand to torture you would still be able to breathe. Don't be silly. There are only too choices logically possible. You can torture the individual or you can choose not too. Doing nothing is only one part of the larger option of not torturing the man. And I have already established the consequences of this choice. ======== Conclusion ======== Clearly there is at least one situation conceivable when torture can be justified. (Resolution affirmed) Good luck :) [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are situations conceivable when torture can be justified.

My opponent presents a scenario which is, truly, inconceivable. There is no reason or purpose. That aside, there are always more options that those that were presented. 1. Kill the man. This will cause him to enter nirvana, where he will not suffer. This would be just, but not torture. The captors wouldn't really complain. [1] 2. Revolt, with the gun I had that you never mentioned that my captors took away from me. 3. Slip the man a drug to numb him, then do what would otherwise be torture. The captors would have every reason to believe that the man is being tortured, even though he is not. If I am not allowed to use these other options, because of some supernatural restriction, then the situation truly is inconceivable, and it does not affirm the resolution. Therefore, I must be able to use the above options. Semantics: The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. [2] I am not using semantics, as by my definition. If this is considered semantics, then my opponent's defining of justification would also be considered semantics, thus granting me victory as he broke his own rules before the debate even started. Inconceivable: incredible [3] Incredible: so extraordinary as to seem impossible [4] The idea of a supernatural force forbidding me from doing anything besides torture the man or nothing seems quite impossible, especially because it forbids me from breathing, sitting, or standing. Clearly, my opponent's argument isn't feasible. Good luck. [1] http://www.Debate.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
There are situations conceivable when torture can be justified.

Imagine that you have been carted off against your will to some dank and sadistic dungeon. Upon arriving you are immediately forced to confront an ethical dilemma. Your captors tell you that you must torture an innocent man that now sits in front of you for 5 minutes. If you fail to comply with this request they will torture the man anyway and 100 other innocent people. And not only will they torture these innocent people they will torture them all to the point of death. So, now you must make a choice. You can torture this innocent person for five minutes and therefore save his life. Or you can refuse to torture him, but in doing this he and 100 other innocent people will be tortured to the point of death. ========= Conclusion ========= Given this state of affairs, in particular, it would seem that there is no harm in torturing this innocent man since doing so is the only way to save his life and the life of 100 other people. ======== Definitions: ======== Torture- For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. http://www.hrweb.org... Justification - something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary. ======== Guidelines: ======== This debate is not concerned with whether or not the situation I outlined is plausible or likely to occur. Moreover, creating alternative choices to this situation is not allowed. Semantics will not be allowed and good luck to whoever accepts. All the best, Freeman
Smoking in public places

Why should someone not have the freedom to smoke? I can understand that smoking should not be allowed if there is an area highly populated by children, elderly, or even sick people. Smoking around them is extremely rude and dangerous. Both smokers and non-smokers should be considerate of each other. It is a two-way street. Where the smoker smokes mainly depends on the location, the crowd, and the situation all together. But I personally think it is highly unfair to take away smoking all together. That is taking away that person's right. We all need to be considerate of one another and the fact that just because you do not like it does not mean everyone else feels that way. As I said before, I am a non-smoker, and I do not mind to be around a smoker as long as they consider not blowing it towards me. There are many habits that people have, good and bad, but does that mean we are to tell them just not to be out in public at all because they have that habit? And yet again with the children. All you really have to do is EXPLAIN the dangers of Smoking. If your kid sees someone who is smoking and does not understand why they look healthy, show (using pictures on the internet) or just explain at they are sick ON THE INSIDE and that they usually die much sooner than person who doesn't smoke.
Smoking in public places

you are right there are many other thing that Pollution the air but we schould try and stop that littles thing and no we cant stop cars form driveing by and yes there is a non somking and somking places but the somke is still and the air we schould try and stop somkimg there is a lot of other thing we should try it stop to also you and a child are diffent a child is going to want to do waht a adult do you know its and wrong and why its wrong if you talk to your child about why somkeing bad and the child see other people do it what the point of talking to it then Reducing adult smoking may eliminate role models who lead children to light up Smoking can harm our bodies in many ways, but it is especially harmful to the lungs of a person with asthmas. Tobacco smoke is a powerful trigger of asthma symptoms. That is why I am extremely agreed that, smoking should be ban form public places Usually, smokings are allowed at the sideways, restaurant and also at the community centers. These places have many people including the children. Let says, there is a smoker at those places; automatically the people surroundings will be the secondhand smoker. Usually, people don't smoke because they understand the danger of smoking. But, what we worried about is the secondhand smoker. It is because the secondhand smoke may be the main factor in causing to a number of health problems. Mostly, the secondhand smoke will irritate our lungs and it also can reduce the oxygen in our blood. people should not somek and publice place also second hand somke. The secondhand smokes also will effects for the other people especially the children. we do not need people who somke around use or our kids .
Smoking in public places

There are many things that affect your health on a 'secondary' reason. Pollution being one of them. You breath toxic fumes every time a car passes by. Should we ban these? Then we'd have to do the same for campfires, mills, factories, vehicle exhausts and soon we'll be so afraid of smoke we'll all have to get personal glass bubbles. As it is, many places have smoking sections and non smoking sections. There you have it. You are separated from the smokers. And yet again I think you are seriously overestimating how easily kids are influenced. I pass by people who smoke everyday and I've never lit a cigarette in my life. If you just want to avoid a difficult discussion with your kids about why people smoke even though It's bad for them I suggest just you don't have kids, because your going to find there are many more difficult things headed your way in the "special talk" department.
Smoking in public places

yes people should have they freedom to somke where ever they want but like resaturned and beaches and park you come there to have fun to to sit around and smell and look at people somke somkeing is very unhealty and it cause many bad thing to your body and i not just talkin about cigarette about peopel somke diffent thing if you know what i mean and i talking about inside places also if we tell our kids not to somke and we see other people do it they will ask if someking so bad why are they doin it your want to show kids a good exmples even teen will you like to see a child or a teen someking what will you do
Smoking in public places

Do you mean inside or outside public places? I honestly believe that smoking should be kept away from doorways and inside buildings as I know it is unhealthy. I am not a smoker and smoking everyday is a personal choice but everyone should have the freedom to do it if they so choose. If your kids end up picking up a cigarette you shouldn't but the blame on a random bystander smoking out in the open. Shove the dangers of smoking into your kids head whenever you can, like my parents did, and I'm sure they wouldn't get near a cigarette.
Smoking in public places

there schould not be smoking and public place why beacuse scond hand smoke is worst the the persone that someking you schould be able to go to a place and dont have to worry about choking or worry about your kids pick up a cigareettes thats why you have a house to do wat ever you want in have whould you like to go to the park will your kids but people smoking going all in the air and your kids going to think its okay......
god is false

The claim is god created life is indeed, and I say it's true. I provide evidences of the bible, and you just claim that it is false without debating about it. So just like before, the pro has not provided evidence that God cannot create life. Unless you can find evidence that might disprove the claims i've posted in Round 2, instead of the words: "It is false because anything that is created or constructed, is a machine.", I will rest my case. Summary: I, the Con say God created life because God is Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent and Benevolent. He can do anything he wishes and so he can create life. God is the creator, God is almighty and God created the Heaens and the Earth Genesis 1:1, thus creating both life and eternal life. I thank you for this.. debate? And I thank you "Logicinlife" for the link to your debate because the Pro likes to re-make debates even though he keeps repeating the same thing. I rest my case. Source: The Bible once again.
god is false

Like the other debate the pro has failed to refute any of my and 'Logininlife' arguments and has not provided evidence that God cannot create life. "creation is impossible in reality life is nature.. not machine". Like I said God is Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent and Benevolent. God made nature itself and God created mankind. He follows his own nature rules, and so he creates life over and over again by giving every newborn a soul. In the beginning he made man out of (Genesis 2:7) dust. Since then he followed his rules of nature. Since you've failed to debate the Arguments in Round 2, I will give the Pro once again the chance to debate them instead of typing random things. Source: http://www.debate.org... The Bible.