BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
euthanasia should be banned

Just to clarify, i'm not questioning people's right to suicide. You life is your own and if you believe you are better off dead, that is ultimately your choice to make via free will. However, in the situation of euthanasia, several problem arise. The main problem is that you are now involving a third party, licensed professional to assist in your suicide. These people are trained to help and save lives. Most of them develop a passion for it and build a connection to their patients. This is viable to cause the problems i mentioned before, in that some doctors may end up becoming to eager to say die. and Some may slowly break down when they finally have to. Allowing someone their final moments may give people that time to reconcile and make peace with loved ones. Suffering is subjective... there are those whom may not realize that sticking around a little longer, may be worth while in terms of providing the people close to them time to properly grieve and say their peace. Many of us, religious or not, believe that life is sacred. We aren't like robots that you can just switch to "off" and it's not our place to say when someone's time is up. The religious sort may hold faith that perhaps even in the worst situations, there is still a chance that said loved one may pull through and make a tolerable recovery. There are the scientific individuals that hold a lot of faith in modern medicine and technology and know that there is always something else we might be able to do. (but choose not to in order to save, time, money, etc.) Again, this allows for a wide margin for slippery slope argument. When euthanasia exists, why bother having any reasonable care for those whom appear to be pretty much done? The value of life decreases, and who's to say that somewhere down the road we won't start euthanizing people with down syndrome or mild retardation? All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live but euthanasia may blurry that statement and shape us into being selective. Finally, it gives doctors too much power. It's a massive cop-out. What if the diagnosis is incorrect? what if the prognosis is incorrect? Many of us fail to realize that although doctors are trained professionals, they too are often wrong. What if you're particular doctor is simply unaware of non-fatal alternatives for the patient's particular case? Euthanasia is easier, quicker, and cheaper than putting in effort, so the likelihood of it becoming an abused solution seems probable. Yes, awaiting death is probably very traumatic. However; human life is valuable. The everyone always appreciates more time. And in many cases, there is more that can be done...
euthanasia should be banned

It is true that doctor's should try their best in bringing someone back to life which won't happen if euthanasia is legalized as there are chances for it to turn into a routine event. But a doctor's duty is not only to save a patient's life but also to improve the quality of the patient's life. There have been many instances when people plea to euthanize their own children who may be in an incurable stage of life such as coma state. Mothers and the dear ones of the one who is in coma or such a state wont be able to watch them 'living death' each and every morning. An individual should have the liberty to choose induced death if he is suffering from an incurable disease where even the best treatment wont improve the quality of his life. Legalizing euthanasia would help to alleviate their pain. While killing someone in an attempt to defend SELF is acceptable by law, mercy killing can be considered as an act that is highly moral in nature. Health care expenditure is and will always be a concern for the family irrespective of the euthanasia laws and only those who can afford a prolonged unproductive treatment can continue to do so. My question is, "Isn't the pain of waiting for death more traumatic?"
euthanasia should be banned

Euthanasia should not be banned as it helps those people who are terminally ill and suffering from extreme physical pain to alleviate their pain by ending his or her life and die with dignity. It is more cruel and unfair to make them suffer and endure the unbearable pain.As the motive of euthanasia is to aid in dying painlessly, it should be considered positively by the lawmakers and should not be banned.
jobless growth is the cause of poverty

The Burden of Proof My opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution: “Jobless growth is the cause of poverty”. For him/her to affirm the resolution, he/she must show that jobless growth is the sole cause of poverty (hence the term “the cause”). In the event that there is shown another cause of poverty, or in the event that jobless growth is shown not to be the cause of some poverty, I win the debate, too. Since I do not have the burden of proof, and my opponent has yet to make an argument, I await his/her argument, so that I may begin attempting to refute what is written – I cannot do so unless my opponent makes an argument. Definition Jobless growth: A jobless recovery or jobless growth is an economic phenomenon in which a macroeconomy experiences growth while maintaining or decreasing its level of employment (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I await my opponent’s arguments.
The UK should send a military task force to the South Atlantic to deter Argentinean aggression

Points1) The banning of ships flying under a certain flag is not an action of military aggression therefore should not warrant a military response. [1] The issue at hand is obviously territorial and economic in nature and there is no reason for either side to employ military tactics. Nations have a right to free trade and trade agreements and this is just a form of trade agreement where countries have agreed not to trade with the Falkland Isles also known as an embargo. Trade agreements do not constitute military show of force. embargo - the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. [2, line one]While embargoes are treated as strong diplomatic measures [3, line two] they are still just that, diplomatic and should stay as such. 2) Aggression begets aggression. Sending a military force to the Falkland's is sure to just inflame the situation even more and sends a poor message. They will be responding to aggression (economic) with aggression (military), not only does it seem unbalanced but it also has a tinge of hypocrisy to it. Also note that it is not singularly Argentina who is on board with this particular embargo but it consists of the entire Mercosur Bloc meaning that the United Kingdom will be potentially getting involved with three nations, not just one. Brazil has the largest Navy in South America and in possession of its own air craft carrier and submarine force. [4]Aggression begets aggression. 3) Alternatively: Most Falkland registered ships are fishing vessels and can avoid docking in South American ports. Merchants can try to ship their goods on ships registered to countries other than the Falkland Island's or can export to neighboring countries to avoid the embargo. ConclusionWhile an embargo on ships bearing a Falkland Island flag seems extreme it does not constitute a showing of military strength but should instead be resolved diplomatically. There are alternatives to aggression and should be pursued first. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The UK should send a military task force to the South Atlantic to deter Argentinean aggression

Clearly the Argentinean government's memories of their country's failed attempt to seize the Falkland Islands in 1982 (1) have faded because, once again, Argentina has turned its beady little eyes to the islands, this time no doubt with the intention of getting their grubby hands on the oil reserves that have recently been discovered off the coast of this British Overseas Territory. (2,3) This treacherous bunch of tango-dancing greasers has belligerently laid siege to the Falklands by instigating a ban on all Falkland Island vessels docking in any Mercosur bloc port (4) – meaning that Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are all off-limits to ships flying the Falkland Islands' flag. The former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, Lord Alan West, recently suggested Britain should send a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and also undertake military exercises in response to the these antagonistic Argentinean autocrats' "aggressive" decision. (5) Lord West is right, a show of strength in the South Atlantic would send these bellicose bureaucrats in Buenos Aires the message that any more funny business from them will be dealt with swiftly and surely. Thank you. (1) http://www.falklandislands.com... (2) http://www.sharecast.com... (3) https://www.cia.gov... (4) http://www.mercosur.int... (5) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
China Is the Strongest Nation on Earth

I hope pro doesn't forfeit again. Anyways, while America owes China money and American businesses are there, America can hurt China more that way. If China requested our debt money we could just ignore it and remove the money we owe from our debt. America gets a wounded reputation while China loses nearly 2 trillion dollars. If China pulled the plug on American businesses, both will be hurt. However with American businesses expanding to India, the effect would only be temporary, while for China, they end up with unemployment with quite a few businesses with likely millions of jobs gone.
Absolutism vs relativism

"I am not your "detractor... Please refrain from this usage. Thank you." My apologies, I did not intend for its usage to be an invective. I will respect your request. "We seem to be in agreement that some absolutes do exist." Then what more are we discussing? I asked if absolutes exist anywhere in the known universe. Conceding to it, since you took the negative position, would render everything else moot at this point. "I will humour you." Those are the kind of "silly answers" I was speaking about earlier. I don't feel that dignifying them with an answer is even necessary. I will allow the voters to decide for themselves. "Value" in itself is a subjective judgement or projection. Also, I need not introduce any "silly contingents or conditions" as all of the questions you asked were already contingent on the existence of the subject, myself, as well as preconceived concepts and definitions, which are all understood relative to the reader's comprehension of our conversation." When asked if words have any meaning or if we assign meaning to them, the one's who claim the latter unwittingly commit to a fatal flaw. If you ask the very phrase, "do words have any meaning or do we assign meaning to them as we go along," the very comprehension of the words is damning evidence that they do have meaning prior to the assignment. After all, that's how we all understand one another. "I do not accept your challenge as it is not my position to try and disprove absolutes, but rather to prove the supremacy of a relativistic weltunschaung over that of an absolutist one. With that in mind, my arguments from Round 1 still stand: you agreed with and added to my claims while refuting nothing but the straw man you created." Are they supreme, though? Without an absolute foundation you can't even precipice ALL relative answers -- indeed it is what supplies them any meaning in the first place. That isn't a straw man, that's inductive and deductive reasoning. In any case, you conceding to absolutes is all that needs to be said since that is all that I asked of you. Thank you for the debate, and I look forward to future debates. I see that you are one of the more cerebral people on the board -- something I appreciate very much.
Absolutism vs relativism

Thank you to Paradigm Lost for posting this debate. I look forward to a good one. For our purposes here, I will be advocating relativism. I base my advocacy primarily on the fact that all experience - anything and everything that comes to us through our sensory manifold (as experience must come to us this way), however it may add to or otherwise affect our "I's" - is ultimately subjective, and it is experience that leads us to our opinions and judgements of thoughts and actions. Some things that influence a given person's experience(s)before that experience reaches the tint of that particular person's mind: time and place of existence, culture, language, social and/or economic position, etc. Each of the former are examples of external influences on experience; some examples of internal influences would be raw intelligence and sex (although sex could really be an example of both), as well as pure sensory capability. Now, each of these affects every individual differently and to a different degree, in turn making each person's views on various topics unique. If one attempts to judge an individual's thought and action outside of the context of their time, place, and other influences, then whatever event is being considered automatically loses its meaning, as these influences are ever-changing, and in any case the judgment will always be affected by our own selves, each of us with our own internal and external influences, and so on. In this way, certain judgments can never be "accurate." Relativism allows us to still judge actions, thoughts, or events, but within context, or having the fact of these influences constantly looming behind us, thus leading to a more sound judgment of a given event. We cannot be objective, but it is something that we can and do to strive for. Relativism is at its most effective use in this manner: helping us to see events in as much light as we can, helping us to understand them as well as possible, by allowing us to examine the complex web of relationships that give rise to the event in the first place and giving those relationships a prime place in our mind's eye.(minds' eyes?) Much more later, hopefully Britt
Absolutism vs relativism

Unfortunately, "philosophy" is not one of the choices given in the debate categories. This debate is almost purely philosophical. My question is whether or not absolutes exist, or if everything is relative. What do I mean? Absolutes deal with subjective facts that do not pander to opinions, whereas relativism states that everything that appears absolute is contingent upon something else to necessitate it, and therefore, nothing is actually concrete. In that sense, reality deals with objective facts. I submit that life is determined by BOTH absolutes and relativity. I believe both can exist, albeit, not simultaneously. So with that, are there any absolutes in the known universe, or is everything relative?
Absolutism vs relativism

"My apologies, I did not intend for its usage to be an invective. I will respect your request." -Thank you. "Then what more are we discussing? I asked if absolutes exist anywhere in the known universe. Conceding to it, since you took the negative position, would render everything else moot at this point." -As I said, it is not my purpose or intent to try and "disprove absolutes." I have stated my position. I would not say everything else is moot, however, as you did ask a question in place of providing a clear thesis. I simply answered your question and argued from that point. "Those are the kind of "silly answers" I was speaking about earlier. I don't feel that dignifying them with an answer is even necessary. I will allow the voters to decide for themselves." -So be it. That is perhaps how you feel, but once again I only provided answers to questions that you asked, and though the answers may be "silly," you have not really shown why. Indeed, let the voters decide - but they cannot be expected to simply take your word that my answers are not satisfactory to whatever criterion you have not provided. Without refutation, I feel that they stand, however silly they are. "When asked if words have any meaning..." -It is not my contention that words have no meaning or that we necessarily assign them meaning as we go along. I am simply saying that every individual processes meaning, as well as intent and context, differently. Even the most masterful writer cannot absolutely convey what he means to the reader. It is always left, in some part, up to the subject to inject their own meaning to any given passage. You and I may both have read and loved say, "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, but our interpretations of what was written and their various connotations and connections with our psyches will always differ. "Are they supreme, though? Without an absolute foundation you can't even precipice ALL relative answers -- indeed it is what supplies them any meaning in the first place." -I believe the relativistic view to be superior. Also, I do have an "absolute foundation" as I posited the existence of specific absolutes previously. It seems to me that the relativistic view has a foundation, conclusions drawn from that foundation have meaning, and that their meaning is the one of highest priority in the vast majority of judgements and comparisons that we all make (consider your example of the pygmy and the Scandinavian.) "In any case, you conceding to absolutes is all that needs to be said since that is all that I asked of you." -I must disagree. If that is the case, would not your concession to all of my Round 1 arguments even us out again? The title of the debate is "Absolutism vs. Relativism," not "Absolutism and Relativism vs. Relativism." We both understand and agree that both exist; what is left is the determination of primacy, in which case I think relativism takes the cake. "Thank you for the debate, and I look forward to future debates. I see that you are one of the more cerebral people on the board -- something I appreciate very much." -Likewise on all accounts. The best to you; see you around the site. Britt
Atheists Are Wrong

Atheists do not assert anything. Simply put, people who believe in a god have made a claim, and atheists are simply people who evaluated the claim and they did not find it believable. An atheist, by definition, can only be wrong if a god has been proven to be real. In order for a god to be proven real, it has to be observable. An atheist does not have to believe the big bang theory, evolution or abiogenesis (even though all of them have been proven to be the case). I personally accept all those theories because they can be proven. Abiogenesis and evolution are observable. We know the rate in which to universe is expanding and if we go backwards we find that the universe was at one point, that is the universe we understand. The big bang theory is a poor name for the theory because astronomists don't actually believe it exploded. They believe that the universe started at one point and simply started to expand (or has been constantly expanding. If my opponent can prove that a god exists, then I will forfeit. But, if you look at many of my religious based debates you will notice not a single one of my opponents have proved to me that a god exists. Nor have they been able to prove it to the voters in my debates, as you will notice not one has voted in agreement with me and then voted in agreement to my opponent. It's not that I, nor the voters are emotionally tied to our beliefs. It's just that no one has been able to prove me wrong
Atheists Are Wrong

Even Darwin regretted the lie of evolution Towards his twilight years, as he faced the prospect of burning in Hell forever for his blasphemous ways, even Charles Darwin himself admitted that he regretted sparking the lie of evolution. Atheists, however, still do not want to admit it is wrong as the only other explanation would be God. Something cannot come from nothing. It is a scientific impossibility. The idea that one second there wasn"t anything then there was is frankly offensive to one"s intelligence. The big bang relies on an unknown spark, kind of like the gunman on the grassy knoll theory, that mixed with chemicals and blew up into planets and suns and people and plants. There is lots of historic evidence of God. If God didn"t create the Earth, why does everything work so well? It can"t be coincidence that we have air to breath, water to drink, and land to live on. God intended it that way. This can"t be something that just happened to occur. Miracles happen everyday Even scientific studies have confirmed the power of praying to God for help. Atheists only use science when it falls in their favor. To them, anything that isn"t liberal or Godless simply must not be heard.
Debate.org is a nice place to debate =)

"I hate when people make fun of others because their defects." I'm not making fun of people, I'm simply pointing out how these people think, which I find detrimental. I am saying this because the debate is on the website, and they are on the website. No offense is intended to them. I think this site really isn't all that fun, for the previous reasons stated, its plauged with problems like vote bombing. "I disagree I think if you don't like this site why are you in it by the first place. ." I am forced to be on this website by my parents. If you knew everyone was going to agree with you, then why did you make this debate in the first place? I win b/c no points refuted, all of his rebutted properly. 750 char limit.
Debate.org is a nice place to debate =)

Like me, debate.org is basically a facebook clone with a debate like flavor. I personally dislike the site, because either everyone is significantly better than me" "Most debaters on this website are ideologues (sadolite, Zerosmelt) as well, which makes gaining knowledge impossible." Everyone has their own capacities. Why are you saying that if this is between me and you. How would you feel if you where in their place. I recommend you to keep your awful mean words between me and you.I hate when people make fun of others because their defects. I disagree I think if you don't like this site why are you in it by the first place. .
Debate.org is a nice place to debate =)

I believe that Debate.org is not a nice place to debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Well I suppose that allot of people here are not here for the fun of it." Like me, debate.org is basically a facebook clone with a debate like flavor. I personally dislike the site, because either everyone is significantly better than me (Logical Master) or significantly worse (the daily noobs.) This is certainly not fun at all to either never have a challenge, or to be faced with an insurmountable task. Most debaters on this website are ideologues (sadolite, Zerosmelt) as well, which makes gaining knowledge impossible. If the creator didn't like debating, then this website wouldn't be here. I don't like it though.