azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Murder, as a crime, requires intent. One would think that, in order to convict someone of a double murder, they would need to prove specific intent to kill the unborn child (which the murderer may well not even be aware of the existence of).I'd say that it would be reasonable to charge the murderer with one count of murder and one count of manslaughter, but not two murders.I base this off of the fact that a person can be charged with murder for disconnecting a brain dead individual from life support when he or she does not have the authority to do so, despite the fact that the family can do so without penalty. Even if the mother of the unborn child has the right to terminate the pregnancy, she is the only one with that right. i went with manslaughter in this case because there is intent when disconnecting life support, but not necessarily intent when an unborn child dies along with the targeted pregnant woman.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

Thank you for making the murder/manslaughter distinction.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

Of course. In practice though it doesn't really seem to matter; the biggest strength and weakness of our justice system, imo, is the jury. Not the system that requires a jury, but specifically the jury/jurors.Convictions get overturned on appeal pretty regularly; one reason this happens is when it's easily demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict an individual on the charges as filed.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

Juries are interesting, in that (as you say) they are simultaneously one of the greatest assets and detriments to the legal system.I do not know that convictions are actually overturned with the regularity you suggest. If that is the case, however, I would suggest that it is not particularly remarkable. One must present a compelling case to have your appeal heard to begin with, so it follows that there would be a disproportionately smaller rate of conviction on appeal than upon initial trial.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Great point about manslaughter although Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder.... but maybe the prosecution argued he wanted them both dead? I don't really know.... and the jury was made up of a bunch of California kooks so anything is possible.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but I will say that there is a huge grey area here.For some, simply having intent to kill the pregnant mother means intent to kill the unborn fetus. Given that the death of the unborn is an almost certain result of the death of the mother, this isn't an entirely unreasonable position to hold, and in some jurisdictions I'm sure one could make the argument that 1) The killer was proven to have intent to kill the woman and 2) The killer knew that the woman was pregnant, drawing the conclusion that the intent to kill the unborn fetus was implied.I'd personally require more than that, but I'm not everybody. And if it is clear that the killer did not know the woman was pregnant, I couldn't vote guilty to the second murder charge regardless.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

I'd say that it would be reasonable to charge the murderer with one count of murder and one count of manslaughter, but not two murders.If I'm remembering my studies correctly, this happened in a case in which someone hit the mother, and this caused defects in the baby that later died when born. There was causation found between the assault and the death so there was a charge of manslaughter (really, there was causation for murder too - the judgement is a little strange...).In any case the most appropriate charge is "child destruction", which is the unlawful termination of a foetus. There is no need to complicate things by saying that the law of murder applies to foetuses. To be the victim of murder you have to be a "human being". I believe in the USA you now define a foetus as a human being under the law of murder. In England we do not. I see no reason to muddy the law of murder to include foetuses when there is a separate law that covers their termination.I base this off of the fact that a person can be charged with murder for disconnecting a brain dead individual from life support when he or she does not have the authority to do so, despite the fact that the family can do so without penalty. Even if the mother of the unborn child has the right to terminate the pregnancy, she is the only one with that right. i went with manslaughter in this case because there is intent when disconnecting life support, but not necessarily intent when an unborn child dies along with the targeted pregnant woman.Makes me think of the case of R v Woollin. A guy shook a 3 month old baby and threw him onto a hard surface. The baby died. The man claimed, although he knew throwing the baby would certainly kill him, he did not have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (this was previously the test of the state of mind for murder). The court found that someone could be found guilty of murder, despite the fact the didn't have direct intent, if the death was a "virtual certainty" of the act and the defendant appreciated this to be the case. This is known as oblique intent murder.So, I suppose, if the defendant knew that the unborn child would virtually certainly die as a result of killing the mother then he should be culpable for the death of the unborn children. However, as I say, I don't believe a foetus should be the victim of a murder charge. "children destruction" is the most appropriate charge.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Let me be a little serious just this once. In some states they can be charged with a double murder and I'm calling bullshit on that because abortion is legal... if abortion were illegal then I'd be okay with it but hey, that's just my opinion.Okay, I'm done being serious now.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

But it is still illegal to do an abortion without the woman's consent, that means that it is an unlawful killing of the baby, murder.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

If abortion is not a violation of an unborn child's right to life, then neither is killing the fetus under other circumstances. It's still illegal of course, just like it's illegal to cut a pregnant woman's arm off, but that doesn't mean it amounts to murder.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

I think I could get behind this concept.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Exactly. USAian law is crazy in classifying a foetus as a human being within the law of murder. If they wanted the termination of a foetus to carry a more serious penalty, just up the sentencing limits. There was no reason in redefining it is a human being other than to put a smile on the face of pro-lifers.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

No no wait. You were serious in the kurds debate .
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Yeah, well I like the Kurds... they are the only decent people in that whole region. If Barry doesn't help the Kurds then fuck him!
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

So what you are saying is that you a special place in your heart for the Kurds.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Is our justice system so bad that the only way we can get the proper punishment for murdering a woman is to charge the killer with 2 crimes instead of 1?
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

IMO, the whole system where minimal sentences for performing multiple offeneces in the same action stack linearly doesn't make much sense in the first place.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

What do you think would be the better way to do it?
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: Oh God Yes!

The minimal sentence should be the one for the most severe offense. Also, sentencing should take into account how the punishment works.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

I wouldn't call the little bugger a person yet so nope. However just to protect the woman's decision to keep that child, if she had in fact planned on keeping that child, I feel their should be some penalty involved. Not amounting to murder, it just doesn't feel like murder to me, but something.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

I agree. Assaulting a women with intent to cause miscarriage should be a bigger crime than punching a perceived jerk in the gut.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

The fetus is not a person yet. There's no reason to charge a double murder.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

Yet.... It still happens.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

I agree. It's bizarre. It's a grey area for a lot of people who still don't know how they feel about abortion or when life begins. That said, it's hard to not be in favor of giving a murderer extra jail time, a murderer whom takes advantage of another's physical condition in this case; which is why it'd be a hard law to change.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

What the hell is that new avatar?
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

A fetus is not defined as living until about the end of the second trimester. It does not matter how much so-called "potential" it has, I have the potential to become a Harvard graduate or homeless, that does not necessarily mean either of those will happen.
Debate: Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?
Side: No, that's stooopid

There is the crime of "child destruction" that covers death of a foetus. It is not necessary to try and apply the laws the laws of murder. The sentencing for child destruction will be more similar to that of murder depending on the gestation of the baby (amongst other factors).
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Yes, the USPS loses Billions of dollars a year. They are the example of every other government agency, the overhead is too much and they do not perform duties like other private companies do. The government should not be apart of mailings anyway, it is not in the constitution
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

As much as I agree that the USPS should be dismantled, the government monopoly gets its stronghold from the Constitution.In Congress' enumerated powers, Under Article 1, Section 8, To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.The only way to defeat it would be a constitutional amendment repeal.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

It is quite unfair that, once again, government is limiting the American's right to choose.the US postal service is slightly efficient, and necessary as seen through history. But, as always, allowing the private sector to have their own delivery service (for first class mail) will create competition, thus, creating more efficient means of service. Not to mention that prices might even get cheaper (more mail for less money, with express and shit).
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Government + Postal Delivery + Public Monopoly - Fair Competition = Tyranny
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

USPS public monopoly makes no sense.Common misconception that raising rates hurts nobody, that is, except for direct mailers, small businesses, consumers, and anybody who doesn't work for the Post Office. Justifications1) "The USPS is hamstrung by government regulations. It's not fair to compare us with private business, because we have to do all sorts of things other companies don't."How can you compare when they have never be allowed to compete?2) "The delivery of mail is a natural monopoly."Has the USPS ever heard of e-mail, faxes? Thanks to the genius of entrepreneurs in the private sector, those markets are now multibillion dollar industries. 3) "Universal service justifies our monopoly. Without it, there's no guarantee everyone would get mail."USPS prides itself with universal service.The high cost of rural delivery is fiction. It is all about the same cost.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

No way! That would be competitve to the government!Just like the privatization of roads!
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

If a business needs to forcefully stop all competition just to survive in the market, how good can it possibly be?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Absolutely stop the monopoly. The world runs on incentives; where's the incentive to keep doing business better if there's no competition?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Precisely, the USPS has no reason to innovate in delivering first class mail.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Yes, please stop the bleeding. It really has little to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with a poorly managed service.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Andy, the reason the USPS has poorly managed service can be directly related back to the monopoly.WHY? Monopolies are notorious for higher prices at low quality.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Yes, I agree with you. I was going down the path that the govenment let the monopoly get as bad as it was. For instance, most businesses which have a true monopoly (or close to it) generally have poor products and/or services, but make money, not lose billions.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Despite the constitutionality of the Post Office, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the post office's power as the sole provider of first class mail. It is another government failure at the expense of the American people. The coercive monopoly of the postal service totally ignores the value of the market. If UPS or FedEx or both were allowed to compete with the USPS, the USPS would ultimately fail without doubt. The USPS credits the failure to the increase in volume of internet use and e-mail. However, it is the inability of the USPS to adapt to market forces and demands. The U.S. Postal Service must make drastic changes to avert a projected loss of $238 billion over the next decade. The move from six days to five could save the Postal Service $3.3 billion a year. The Postal Service is not funded by taxpayers and must rely on revenue from stamps and other postal services. It has borrowed about $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury and expects to borrow $3 billion more this year. [1]
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

If UPS or FedEx or both were allowed to compete with the USPS, the USPS would ultimately fail without doubt.  Yeah, and we can see this by the fact that Fed Ex and UPS currently often send their own packages through USPS to remote locations becuse it's cheaper than delivering them themselves.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

If you privatize the USPS you will have some unintended consequences.The reason for the monopoly is that private companies will not and do not find it cost efficient to deliver to all addresses. So, whenever there is any talk of privatizing the USPS, universal service will be eliminated by the market.Do you want to allow UPS and Fed-ex to only deliver in highly populated areas driving any company with universal service out of business thus eventually bringing about large areas of no delivery? Would that not then bring about a more expensive goverment department to fill the needs of those individuals the private market finds too expensive to deliver to.It already happens as UPS and Fed-ex contract out delivers to the USPS in areas they don't find profitable to deliver to.Or would allowing a monopoly for the sole purpose of not having to pay MORE goverment funds to deliver to places the private industries don't want to deliver?The USPS gets the advantage it does to continue to deliver to ALL addresses.Is it efficient, no way but in it's years it continues to deliver to every address on every business day. Now, I'm sure the USPS could compete with any business that is forced to do the same exact thing. If UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to service every address that receives something six days a week,you don't think their costs would sky-rocket.If it's ever done you would hear the same people complaining because their service was stopped or become much too expensive.Universal service is what keeps the USPS apart from all others.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

What unintended consequences? ---Breaking Up a government monopoly. Apparently, universal service justifies a government monopoly. Without it, there’s no guarantee everyone would get mail. That is a myth.When USPS implies the phrase universal service, they mean the delivery of mail to any address anywhere in the US for one single price. Even if it makes no sense. Even if they have to threaten competitors with jail time.How is it fair to make people who choose to live in cities subsidize people who choose to live in the country? So, those who live in country should get cheaper mail at the expense of urban people.Who actually believes that delivering a package next door for the same price as to delivering to Alaska accomplishes some critical social goal?Then, why is it so important for letters? People live far in rural areas for a reason because well, they want to; they accept the costs and the benefits. More power to them. Universal service simply hides the true costs of rural living. Nothing more.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Am I saying it's right,I don't care.Is there some great social reason it should be done ,,,,NO.I'm stating the facts as you were comparing goverment to private business.Private businesses are far greater,far more efficient and the way to go but up until recently the delivery of mail was felt to be needed universally.Still today billions of dollars of business are conducted through the mail.The goverment and constitution saw the importance of that business at one time.Maybe not as important as today but several large companies are impacted by the USPS even losing one day of delivery.I'm just stating facts that were not contained in the argument that would occur upon privatization.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

I'm stating the facts as you were comparing government to private business.Like I haven't seen that before. Those are government facts supplied by government bureacrats.How about this: Let’s even things out by getting rid of the regulations you’re complaining about, in exchange for taking away your right to throw competitors in jail.Whenever you propose that idea to monopolists complaining about regulation, it always meets with a stunned silence. It’s a deal regulated monopolies couldn’t possibly accept. Take away the privileged environment they’ve grown up with, and they won’t last two seconds. All of the USPS advantages are strung up in regulations and laws, which makes it impossible for private companies to compete.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Why even things out your way??? You want UPS and Fed-Ex to compete equally, well let them compete under USPS regulations.Would they work in a system with a goal of breaking even?How long would UPS and Fed-Ex hang around if their goal was only to break even?The USPS while given advantages is mandated to do things a private company never would do. They are mandated to do these things because the Constitution and our goverment calls for it. And here I thought only libs were for taking apart the Constitution.Bring on the competition but mandate them and let's see how efficient the competition is.Sure UPS and Fed-Ex constantly want to dip into the business of the USPS in hearings in front of Congress but never do they want to be mandated to serve the nation as the USPS does.Do I agree with the monopoly, no way.I am pointing out that you are comparing the private sector to a goverment body that the Constitution and goverment says must operate in a certain business way. No goverment body will ever compete in this way with a private corporation.What I am saying is no private co-corporation would take up the goal of that goverment body.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

If the privatization contract was written to mandate universal delivery, no one can contest that, and I think you'll find that he winner of the contract will use all available means of complying with "universal delivery", even if means subcontracting back to USPS or anyone else. That's part of the beauty of private enterprise, there no rules prohibiting HOW "universal service" must be performed. Also, the USPS business model is outdated, like the contested closing of the Berkley, CA post office. Better to sell those beautiful bldgs for cash and move-into supermarkets, and other places where people naturally congregate in the course of their daily lives.Finally, USPS's labor costs are way out-of-sight, when compared with UPS & FEDEX.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

The Postal Service is an egregious monopoly distorting all mail service.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Allow me to introduce you to Fedex.Oh, and UPS.But the things is, guess who they often subcontract to deliver packages to remote locations FOR them? USPS. Because it isn't cost effective for them to do it themselves. The private secotr is NOT better at everything, some things the public sector just handles in a superior manner. This is one of them.