BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

So it seems you understand that he lied. Okay good, That way I wouldn't have to list down the facts because my time probably would have been wasted since you know how the incident is a lie. I understand you now, You're meaning people making false police reports, I thought you meant people staging hate crime attacks. I understand what you're saying about white people calling the police on black people for no reason. Just because Jussie did staged this hate crime, Doesn't make it okay for people continue to do it nor does it make the other instances you mentioned okay. About the cases you mentioned, There's this thing called white privilege so whatever those white people do, It tends to get overlooked. What I mean is that there's been so many stories about white people having this fear of black people so they call the police when black people aren't doing anything wrong at all. With there being so many stories, It has this numbing effect that people get used to hearing about it. There has been outrage about these stories, Yes but with so many of the same exact stories unfortunately happening, You get tired of it. There will always be double standards, Case in point: Look at Stephen Collins, He has been accused with about the same thing as R. Kelly. Sexual abuse, Child molestation and things of that nature. But how ironic is it that Stephen Collins wasn't in the media much and people barely had anything to say about him, Yet people are so gung-ho about R. Kelly and have a lot to say about him. Granted, I'm not making excuses for R. Kelly because what he did was wrong, But I'm just showing the double standards between the two races. Now look at Jussie Smollet. A gay man will get judged automatically, But he is also black so that's another thing so of course this story got a lot of attention, Not only because of the story but the LGBT, Which is a very sensitive community, So a lot of people in that community have spoken out about it. I'll get into why this case is so serious and why Jussie should apologize. This case sticks out from the other cases you mentioned because this is on a much larger scale. Staging a hate crime is crazy, He did it to get attention. Around the same time that Jussie claimed he got beat up, Taraji tweeted to go stream his music and go watch his new music video, So she was promoting him. Jussie should apologize because this will effect the next person who's a true victim of a gay bashing, Or a true victim of racism and everything else.
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

Nope, He could be lying more so than telling the truth, But it really doesn't make a difference because cases like this has been happening for over a century and absolutely nothing has been done about it. My question to you is "why would Smollett's fake call/ fake report to the police be considered so wrong, Especially when you have white women calling the police on black people for no reason at all? Have you not been watching the news over the past year starting with the Starbucks incident? OK. . . He surely lied, Which is obvious, But where was this outrage when the white woman called the police on a 12-year-old black boy for dribbling a basketball down the street? Where was this outrage when another white woman, Yet again, Called the police on a little black girl for selling lemonade on the sidewalk? You said that there's so much evidence that proved Smollett lied & I totally agree, But what about the recorded video evidence that's been shown all over the news of these white women making false police reports to law enforcement? I've been waiting on the outrage, But some people tend to get quiet when the roles are reversed. . . This case is petty & "Selective Outrage" is hypocritical. So, The issue really isn't whether he told the truth or not, The issue is that of (I choose to be outraged when it's convenient). As you just said, "let's call a spade a spade. ". . . We can play dumb and try to deny what's been happening, Or we can have a Logical discussion. It's up to you to choose which route that you're going to take because we all know what the deal is.
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

"The actor Jussie Smollett could've been telling the truth about is incident. "But he wasn't telling the truth. He lied. There's been too much evidence already proven that Jussie has lied several times, Changing the report a few times isn't the only thing. Please choose 1 or 2 so we can get everything clear. 1) Are we debating whether or not the incident regarding Jussie Smollet was a truth or a lie? By you including "If" he lied and "Allegedly telling a fib" in the title, That leads me to believe that you're leaning towards him telling the truth, Am I correct? I was going to make a full list of irrefutable facts on how this Jussie incident is a lie, Which can't really be argued or rebutted as it is backed up by news, Police reports, TMZ, Valid sources, Etc. You did say "logical and based on facts". Are you aware of some of the things that has come out that proves this incident to be a lie? Instead of listing all of the facts I decided to ask this question and the question below just for clarification to see how much you know regarding the incident. Allegedly - used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, Although there is no proof. There is no allegedly, It's been proven that he lied. 2) We both acknowledge that the incident is in fact a lie (which it is) and we debate whether it being a big deal or not and he should get away scott free and not get punished. Of course your side being "He shouldn't be charged" and my side "He should be charged"Or are we debating both? "There's definitely no need to apologize because people do the same thing as him on a regular basis"You're saying people stage hate crimes on a regular basis? If so, Provide source(s). Or did I take your point the wrong way? Jussie should apologize, As to why he should apologize, I will get into that in R2. "If he lied, Then just let the man sail off into the sunset because this case isn't really a big deal to begin with. "This is a serious situation, And it is a big deal. I'll explain why in R2. "Chicago law enforcement should not bend the rules and make him pay for any restitution, Especially because they have a long history of corruption under their belt"I agree with Chicago PD having corruption, But let's call a spade a spade. This is Jullie Smollet's situation, No one else's and they tried working with him and he didn't really do the same back to help the investigation. I'll explain why in R2 if Pro needs me to. If anyone viewing needs me to then let me know.
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

The actor Jussie Smollett could've been telling the truth about is incident in Chicago a few weeks ago despite changing his report a few times. There's definitely no need to apologize because people do the same thing as him on a regular basis. If he lied, Then just let the man sail off into the sunset because this case isn't really a big deal to begin with. Chicago law enforcement should not bend the rules and make him pay for any restitution, Especially because they have a long history of corruption under their belt. My take on this incident is to leave the man alone and let him live his life. I'd love to hear someone else's take on this topic as long as its logical and based on facts. I don't think that anyone can say that this blunder was serious without keeping a straight face.
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

Before moving on to my arguments, I would like to define a few terms. My first term is 'doctor'. Doctors are people that cure their patients and would do their best to help their patient no matter what. 'Relatives' are your family that had been looking after you since you were young and know the what is best for you. I personally think that Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relatives. My first argument: Why is it ok for the relatives to make the choice ? We must all understand first that when someone is sick, they are not in the proper state of mind and will not be able to make the best choice for themselves. In fact, they may even be blur and obviously won't know what is best for them. Relatives know you the best. They may be your parents, cousins or even you husband or wife. They know what you like, they know you. On my side, we would only allow the doctor to lie when the relatives allow. In this case, the relatives would be making the best choice for you. It can either be a yes or no. It is because the relatives knows you, and that is why they are suppose to be making the choice. Even if the relatives don't know so much about you, it is obvious that they would you better than any others! My second argument: It is ok to lie, for the greater good I agree that a lie is a sin, but a white lie is not. We are lying but we are doing it for the greater good. Patients at that state would be hurting physically. If the research prove that he is going to die in a week, we should not just tell him the truth. He is going to suffer physically and mentally. We want him to enjoy all of the time he have left and we want him to pass away as peacefully as possible and not suffering from the information that he is will die in a week. How would you feel like if the doctor say that you are gonna die in a week. Everyone would be very desperate and would be suffering a lot. On my next round I would be stating my rebuttals and some arguments. I have proved that it is ok to lie and the relatives are suppose to be making the choice instead of you. Thank you.
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

My opponent throughout the entire debate has made quite ludicrous assumptions. Thus, his points are not valid. I will make my case for my side: Contentions and Rebuttals"Firstly my opponent claims that he can be prepared to die. But if you know you are going to die, are you actually going to think of anything? No! When you know you are dying, you will be very stressful and therefore die suffering."My opponent has not understood my argument. He claims that a person would be stressed if they were told when they would die. Well, perhaps if they were told with 3 days left to live; then they would be stressed. However, if one is told weeks or even months in advance, they would not; they would expect it, and be ready. That point has been negated. "Secondly, my opponent stated that the patient would feel peace to know if they would die. It is clear that he completely misunderstood concept about human feeling. People would not die in peace if they know when they are dying because most people don't know where they will be going after they die or others. They will be scared and therefore would not be in peace."The grammar in those lines is difficult to decipher, but it is, in essence, the same as his previous point, which I have negated. He provides evidence, sites, studies, or links to support his statement, so his theory on 'human feeling' is not valid, as well. "My opponent have stated a very interesting point on what would happen if the patient found out. I see that the patient would not find out because they trust what the doctor say. Even if they don't trust, how will they even find out when they are sick and lying on a bed. I am sure that they can not walk and look at the 'patient sickness information'."In a hospital, relatives are allowed to speak to the patient. Thus, the truth could easily be spilled. Once again, if they were told that they were not sick, wouldn't one wonder why they were being kept in the hospital.__The point my opponent made on smoking is not true. Smoking cannot be stopped as easily as my opponent implies, and he doesn't know the mindset of what that person would be thinking. To reiterate, my opponent has not refuted the following points, and thus concedes on them: - The patient would have to be kept in the hospital when he believes he has nothing to worry about- The patient would wonder why he is being kept in the hospital if he is not sick- Issues with money and treatment- Reasons for the patient to change their lifestyle- Family members not being able to keep a secret that large- Family memebers acting different around the person they know will die- Prevention of the secret coming out- How the patient would react if he found outMy fellow citizens, I have shown to you why the proposed resolution is not viable and should not be implemented. My opponents arguments fail to refute the above points, and he does not consider the issue of money and costs of treatment. My arguments stand. Thank you. - Shadow-Dragon -
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

Thank you very much for responding to that. Before moving on, I would like to state some rebuttal. Firstly my opponent claims that he can be prepared to die. But if you know you are going to die, are you actually going to think of anything? No! When you know you are dying, you will be very stressful and therefore die suffering. Secondly, my opponent stated that the patient would feel peace to know if they would die. It is clear that he completely misunderstood concept about human feeling. People would not die in peace if they know when they are dying because most people don't know where they will be going after they die or others. They will be scared and therefore would not be in peace. My opponent have stated a very interesting point on what would happen if the patient found out. I see that the patient would not find out because they trust what the doctor say. Even if they don't trust, how will they even find out when they are sick and lying on a bed. I am sure that they can not walk and look at the 'patient sickness information'. He also say that the addiction smoking can not be stopped. I stated clearly that we would provide some information. And that include on telling him that if you smoke, you will die. Of course, he would panic and immediately stop so that he would not die. With the relative's assistant help, he will be able to stop smoking or taking the drugs. Voters, I have provided information why my arguments work and my opponent's did not. I also provided reliable sources. Voters vote for Matthorner!!
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

There were quite a few ludicrous assumptions made by my opponent last round. Let me begin by proving my case agianst those. "By being so truthful and honest to your parent, you will harming the patient mentally." This is not correct. I'm sure many patients would rather know that they will die soon so they can prepare, rather than be lied to and continue on with their shortening life regularly. The claims you have made are simply what you assume one would feel, but since you were not in that situation, you cannot make those claims. "According to your model, are you gonna tell the patient that you have 1 week left? It would totally harm the. I see that even lying that they have a week more would still, make them better." Once again, another claim made by false assumption. Under your model, one could assume that you would like to be lied to about your date of death, and told that it would be later. Think of how much more at peace one would be if they knew they would die, and thus were able to plan ahead, and fulfill their {P2} Bucket List. The logic you are using begs the questions: What happens if the patient finds out? (Surely one would react in anger or dissapointment seeing the fact that he was lied to about his death date, and his relatives were keeping it secret.) How would relatives keep this secret? (Surely a troubled relative would want to tell since they know about his death!) "You must understand first that during that period of time, the patient would be remained in the hospital. A hospital is a place where it is no smoking, therefore, the patient will not be smoking because the place is under controlled." That, too, is not true. Patients would be allowed to leave if they wanted to. They are not being opporated on the entire time in the hospital, and thus, are given some free time. Which calls for the next point.... If a patient was told that he had no disease, why would he be kept in the hospital? He would wonder why, if he is alright, is he being kept in the hospital and, according to you, not allowed out. "Even if they are allowed to go home, their relatives would be aware of it and will try their best to stop him for smoking."If a person was told that they did not have a disease, what would stop them from continuing smoking. If smoking is so addictive, then the patient would think, "Well, if it didn't hurt me before, it can't hurt me now." That point cannot be denied because I have had personal experience dealing with people who do not quit, even after a heart attack. "Firstly, the patient would feel mentally good, and may even have chances of living longer." If the patient had the disease, they would be experiencing syndromes, not feeling happy. "Secondly, they would enjoy all of the time that they have left and will pass away peacefully." I have proved this false through {P2}, since those with terminal illnesses would want to accomplish a few things, before dying unexpectedly. My citizens, I have refuted my opponent's claims. Thank you.
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

Thank you for responding, before moving on to my arguments, I would like to state some rebuttals. Firstly, the opposition mentioned that it is the doctor duty to be truthful to their patients. If you are going to bring up this case about duty, I will also bring up my case that it is also the doctor's responsibility to help the patient mentally and physically. By being so truthful and honest to your parent, you will harming the patient mentally. I therefore your case is not working at all. After that you stated that the patient would not be any happier if they know they have one year to live which is the lie. I understand that if you are told that you have 1 year left but actually you have 1 week left. According to your model, are you gonna tell the patient that you have 1 week left? It would totally harm the. I see that even lying that they have a week more would still, make them better. Therefore, you case failed. Also, you brought up the case of that the patient will be continuously smoking if the doctor lied to them that they don't have lung cancer when they actually have. I believe that you have completely misunderstood the concept of 'under treatment'. You must understand first that during that period of time, the patient would be remained in the hospital. A hospital is a place where it is no smoking, therefore, the patient will not be smoking because the place is under controlled. Even if they are allowed to go home, their relatives would be aware of it and will try their best to stop him for smoking. At my last rebuttal, you stated that the doctor would be taking advantages over it. There are 3 reasons that tell that why this case of yours fail. 1. During an operation, there are a lot of nurses and doctors in charge. If a doctor lie, the rest would not and would stop him from doing it. 2. Families would also try to observe the doctor. If they found out that the doctor is doing so, they can sue the doctor or ask for a new one. 3. The doctor would be aware that if they do it, they will get fired. If they know this, they won't be doing it. Therefore I see that this case of yours fail. On my argument, I would be talking about how does it benefit the patient. Firstly, the patient would feel mentally good, and may even have chances of living longer. Happiness is one kind of the best medicine in the world. I see that by making the patient happy, they will have a strong body system and as a result will hardly get harmed by other disease. Secondly, they would enjoy all of the time that they have left and will pass away peacefully. Thank you Here are my sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://www.roswellpark.org... http://www.physicianspractice.com... http://www.poweryourpractice.com... http://www.medscape.com...
Doctor should be allowed to lie to patient with the consent of the relative

Thank you for that response. However, the proposed resolution would not be a viable system. {P1} Doctors' Contract As you even stated yourself, a doctor's job is to help and cure the patient. By lying to them, the doctor is not fulfilling their duties. I know that even with the relatives' consent, I would want to be told what illness, God forbid I had one, I had. I would not want to be lied to- as many others would agree- because, if I was diagnosed, there would be things I would want to do. Which brings me to my next point: {P2} Bucket List If a patient- or even you- was told that they have 1 year to live, how would that one year be treated differently? Perhaps one would finally do the things they never had a chance to do- a bucket list. With one year to live, they would want to travel the world, try new things, and cherish those last few months. However, if they were lied to, what would happen? They would continue on with their life without any worry. Then what?....They would die. It would be expected by the relatives, and un-expected for the patient who was lied to all those months ago. {P3} The lifestyle So, a patient is a smoker, and is brought into the office for a checkup. The doctor realizes that the patient has lung cancer. According to your proposition, the doctor will get consent from the family members, and lie to patient. What would the doctor say? "It's fine, John Doe. You don't have cancer. You'll be fine." So, what does the unlucky John Doe do? He realizes that he doesn't have cancer, and continues smoking. Perhaps you may be thinking of the other route it could have taken. I will address that as well. The doctor tell John Doe, "You don't have cancer, but you should stop smoking." What does John Doe think? : "Well, it didn't give me cancer before, so I can do it again." John Doe continues smoking, and dies of the lung cancer his relatives opted to hide from him. {P4} Doctor's Benefit Imagine another story: So, the doctor checks a guy whose family are quite paranoid that the man has cancer. The doctor realizes this, and uses this to his advantage. How? He follows the proposed resolution. He tells the relatives, "Sorry to say, but John Doe has cancer." However, John Doe does not actually have cancer! The relatives give permission for the doctor to lie to patient [like how he just lied to them]. The doctor suggest that the patient pays for a $5000 treatment. The doctor in that story followed the resolution, and actually benefited himself-getting paid for the treatment- and the family loses from the arrangement. That is a very plausible situation where the doctor is able to manipulate the system you have proposed. Resolution: Negated I have showed multiple arguments and support for my side. The proposed resolution would not be a viable one as seen with the cases above, and others. I will continue my arguments along with my rebuttals next round. Thank you. - Shadow-Dragon -