BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia :)

To begin with, saying anything is against god's will implies that either everybody believes in god (which not everyone does) or that this law will only impact religous people (not true, everyone is impacted). Secondly the slippery slope effect is an unproved concept that has nothing to do with the euthanasia being legalised. Doctors are healers, but we are talking about things here that can't be healed. In response to your 8 year old boy argument, If he was in extreme pain, Why forcde him to keep going. Euthanasia is a kindness offered under strict conditions, and that is what should be legalized. If done correctly the slippery slop can not happen.
Euthanasia :)

Euthanasia should be banned in the US because doctors are healers, not murders, and euthanasia is against god's will. Furthermore, there's the slippy slope effect of when you make euthanasia for some people it will be expanded to more people. For example, most people think euthanasia refers to killing old and sick people but should a 8 year old be allowed to be euthanized? In Vacco v. Quill (1996) the supreme court already ruled against euthanasia in a 9-0 vote. It is for these reasons that I can only see a con ballet.
The Bailout of Car Companies

I would like to extend my hand in friendship and welcome him to this debate site. I humbly thank my opponent for his excellent points and his polite attitude throughout this debate. It is a rare thing when someone not only remains polite throughout the proceedings of a debate, but also reply with such promptness and extend such great complements. For this I graciously thank my opponent. If my opponent would like to discuss the matter of the current financial situation further, I implore him to join a topic I have made on the forums part of this site. Votes that are not explained in the comments section as per the TOS I have made will not be counted. Therefore I request that all voters seeking to cast their vote to do so in the comments section with written explanation for each vote.
The Bailout of Car Companies

<> < > These cases are true but you can't not criticize something just because it has been done before. If you kick someone in the foot and you hurt someone does that make it okay for someone to kick you in the foot? No. My opponent makes the Laissez-Faire economic system look like a bad thing. This debate is about principle. < > This is true but all Laissez-Faire things are capitalistic. Example: Not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are dogs. (Converse of his example) First of all, the bailout MIGHT NOT EVEN WORK. In that case it was a waste of tax payer dollars. I believe that people should have to deal with their own mistakes. Example: If someone opens up a drink store and sells lemonade really well, theythen they change to just selling lemonade, then winter falls. They don't sell anymore and you end up making more money off of selling hot chocolate. This would normally lead to them just going out of business and you would gain all their customers. However, lets say someone pays them off and they come back next summer and this time they do better than you. More money is poored from the government to your companies as you each compete, which in a sense defeats the purpose of competition. Competition is the basis of anything capitalist. Some would say it wouldn't be fair that some of the person's employees of the lemonade stand would lose their job. Well I say that's when the company who did well comes in and scoops up the companies losses and buys them out. This saves the jobs and also profits the company that made good business decisions. 1) People should have to deal with their own mistakes. 2)Those who are affected by the mistakes of others, are also affected by the success of others (i. e. another company buys them out and keeps their jobs) 3) No requirement for success because of "Big Brother" government leads to risky investments and canceled loans. 4) Banks putting out risky loans out of greed because the government would pay them back any losses on it was a major cause of the mortgage crisis. I look forward to your response and I'm thrilled by the level of detail by which you deliver your points.
The Bailout of Car Companies

We live in a capitalist society which means that the individual is responsible for his own mistakes. If we give out money a company everytime we screw up many companies will take stupid risks and lose money on them because they know they'll get backed up the government and tax payer dollars. Some of the companies (like GM) were to specialized in their business and that's why they're doing poorly. That's unfortunate for the workers who had nothing to do with it but that's capitatlism. Another company will buy them out or they'll have to restart from scrap. This is how our system has worked (and quite well I might add) for over 200 years. To defeat my argument you'll have to explain why we shouldn't be capitalist and what type of government we should change towards.
Darth Maul is better than Darth Revan

Point 1: There can be no direct, official proof that proves that Maul is better than Revan, or the Revan is better than Maul. It is simply a matter of one's opinion. Unlike politics, there is little to differentiate between the two. Revan may have killed Mandalore and Maul may have killed Qui Gon, but one cannot tell either one defeat is better than the other. Point 2: Revan had more training than Maul. But does that make him a better Jedi or Sith. Depends. I mean Darth Sidious could know more than any other Jedi or Sith. Or, Sidious's teachings only scratched the surface. Maul and Revan never fought one-on-one. There is no direct way to prove that one would kill the other. Only assumptions. Point 3: Cons facts certainly place Revan over Maul. But it is still a matter of debate whether which one would get killed in a fight. Point 4: I now see what a stupid debate this is. Not on the grounds that Con has wiped me off the table, but on the grounds that all of this whole debate depends on one's opinion. There are no facts. This is a fictional story. There are no reliable sources or overwhelming conclusion that would sway this debate one side or the other. Point 5: Star Wars books only give us limited knowledge. Unlike in the real world where statistics can prove a point, the books and movies only provided us with a certain amount of knowledge. Anything beyond what is said in the books or movies is just an assumption. There could be a factor that has not been counted in that would be crucial in this debate. ==Conclusion== This debate only has a small, finite amount of information to draw upon. There is still a lot of information from both characters that would be warranted knowing. This debate is solely one's opinion. There can never be one statistic or phrase that will prove anyone's side right or wrong, and not even enough to sway the debate to one side or the other. I realize now that trying to debate this with you is useless. The voters do not have anything to draw upon. The debate hasn't swayed to one side or the other.
Darth Maul is better than Darth Revan

==Refutations==Darth Maul:Point 1: The only one of two Siths to kill a Jedi in the 6 movies.Obviously we aren't strictly using the six movies as the source material for this debate. We are using Star Wars movies, books, game, ect. It wouldn't make sense to using the movies as source material, considering Darth Revan makes no appearance in any of the six movies.Point 2: Being an apprentice does not mean one is less trained than a lord. I could give you dozens of real life examples of this.An apprentice is defined as an inexperienced person, thus a sith lord is much more experienced than a sith apprentice. A sith lord has much more knowledge and training that a sith apprentice. Besides, Revan had much more training than Maul. Maul had training only in the dark side of the force, whereas Revan was taught both Jedi and Sith techniques. Also, Maul's only master with whom he trained with was Darth Sidious. Darth Revan trained with countless Jedi masters, such as Zhar, Dorak, and Master Kae. Of course, these three are only are small amount of the many Jedi masters Revan trained under. Revan also trained at Trayus Academy [2], which is an academy for Sith usrs.Darth Revan:Point 1: Isn't even in the movies.Once again, we aren't only using the Star Wars movie, since Darth Revan makes no appearance in any of the six Star Wars movies.Point 2: Doesn't kill anyone.This is completely false. To counter this all I need to do is give evidence of one person Revan has killed."In the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars, Revan single-handedly killed Mandalore in single combat." This is directly from the Star Wars Wiki(Wookieepedia). Obviously my opponent's claim that Darth Revan did not kill anyone is false.Point 3: Establishes his own "fake" Sith empire with him as the leader.I'm unsure as to why my opponent called off Darth Revan's empire was "fake". He was powerful enough to control the empire by himself. Hopefully my opponent can elaborate on all of his arguments next round.==Sources==[1] http://starwars.wikia.com...[2] http://starwars.wikia.com...
Darth Maul is better than Darth Revan

Darth Maul: Point 1: The only one of two Siths to kill a jedi in the 6 movies. Point 2: Being an apprentice does not mean one is less trained than a lord. I could give you dozens of real life examples of this. Darth Revan: Point 1: Isn't even in the movies. Point 2: Doesn't kill anyone. Point 3: Establishes his own "fake" Sith empire with him as the leader.
Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, ""By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them." Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.
Medical Marijuana

If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments "I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana." Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.
Medical Marijuana

Until its prohibition in 1937, extract of Cannabis sativa (marijuana) was one of the top three most prescribed medicines in the US. The active compounds in marijuana are similar to a class of molecules in our bodies called endocannabinoids. Both bind to receptors in the brain and throughout the body called cannabinoid receptors. This system influences our immune system, protects nerve cells from premature death, and influences mood, memory, appetite, sleep and movement. With cancer patients, it relieves nausea resulting from chemotherapy. For patients with AIDS, it increases the appetite for people suffering from severe weight loss. Also, cannabis is proven more effective than opiates in treating long-term chronic pain.
Medical Marijuana

It is proven that marijuana is not an addictive drug if used for only a short amount of time. If it is used over a span of many years, it is possible to become dependent on it. However, this number is still only 9%. Also, as I mentioned before, if a patient is prescribed this drug in order to overcome an illness, they will most likely only be using it for a short period of time. If this is the case, it is nearly impossible for them to become "addicted".
Medical Marijuana

Although marijuana poses some danger, so do most other drugs prescribed by doctors. There are always going to be some sort of side effects. It is a powerful drug, but the dangers associated with it are the same associated with smoking cigarettes. Also, many patients only would need medicinal marijuana for a short amount of time, and therefore would not receive many negative smoking effects. The harms of this drug are within the range tolerated for other medications. Cannabis is one of humanity's oldest medicines;China used it in medicinal tea, and for thousands of years people have used this drug without knowing any negative effects. With this being said, the positive effects of marijuana outweigh the slight risks.
Medical Marijuana

It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.
Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired

I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*: "Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired" ^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech. My argument will be as follows: 1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education. 2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired. Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent. Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave. So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion. *(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: from 1min 15secs). **(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*) ***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*)
Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

I will begin: Intelligence PRO is claiming that the assumption that “intelligent things” require an “intelligent cause” is “basic” and should “be assumed. ” He further claims that I carry the burden to argue against this assumption. I find this patently absurd. PRO has not demonstrated any reason that this assumption should presupposed, or that I carry any burden to debunk it, and I therefore reject it. Cow and Pigs I honestly have no idea what PRO is trying to argue here. I freely admit that cows and pigs have been selectively bred by humans, as my source demonstrates. I apologize if I inadvertently created a strawman; I honestly could not decipher PRO’s point, so I suggested two possible interpretations, and discussed them both. Now, after this round, it seems that PRO’s original point is that the intelligence of humans was required to make cows and pigs into their present, useful forms. This I concede. The same can be said of corn, wheat, dogs, horses, and numerous other species. I’m not sure how this point does anything other than harm PRO’s position. Cows and pigs have changed over time due to selection pressures; in this case, humans. This is an analogue to evolution by natural selection. Wrapping Up PRO has failed to provide support for his point that intelligence requires an intelligent designer. His point about cows and pigs is indecipherable at best; harmful to his point at worst. Overall, he has not met his burden.
Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

MrJosh, in order to understand the intelligence argument, you need to understand it is basic to assume there was an intelligent cause of intelligent things. In metaphysics, that is a basic assumption. Unless you present arguments to the contrary it shoudl be assumed this is the case and thus intelligent design holds true. Secondly it is said that cows and pigs were created by humans and this has not been refuted by the linked paper. It is also claimed that i am making up a cause for them on a fallacious argument for the creation of cows and pigs. There is no evidence of this, it is just saying that creating cows and pigs is a better assumption than that they survived as forms of food for years in a survival of the fittest evolutionary paradigm.
Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

Unfortunately, I have to take issue with nearly every part of it. No EvidenceRight off the bat, PRO has made an error by claiming that “intelligent things can only be formed ultimately by an intelligence. ” This is a claim which has not been demonstrated. I reject PRO’s claim that it is obvious, and request actual evidence in support of this assertion. FallacyRegarding cows and pigs, PRO is claiming that their present form is “impossible” without human intervention. This is actually correct, as humans have selectively bred both pigs and cows [1]. Now, if the intelligent designer PRO is arguing for is humankind, he is correct. However, that is not what Intelligent Design (ID) means. ID refers to an intelligent designer that created the universe [2]. Therefore, if PRO is arguing that the designers here are humans, he fails. On the other hand, it is possible, that PRO meant that an intelligent designer is required to make these animals the way they are. If this is indeed what PRO meant, it is a different fallacy. This would be akin to saying, “Since I cannot imagine how my keys got under the couch cushions, it must have been Bigfoot. ” Yet another claim for which PRO needs to provide evidence. TestingFinally, I would like to address an overarching point. PRO has claimed that ID is a more reliable “Theory” than evolution. Per our agreed upon definitions, a theory is a hypothesis that has been backed up, and a hypothesis is a testable assumption. Therefore, in order to be a theory, ID must be testable. As PRO is claiming that ID is a theory, he must demonstrate that it is indeed testable. If he cannot, ID cannot be said to be a theory at all, let alone a more reliable one than evolution. Source:[1] . http://www.animalfrontiers.org...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

I accept my opponents definitions. In this debate I will be arguing that the things in nature exhibit intelligence, and intelligent things can only be formed ultimately by an intelligence. I believe that is obviously true, at least more so than its negation, that blind nature shaped intelligent animals and humans. Also the fact that pigs and cows exist. One is a form of food, the other pisses another form of food. How did those things survive to reproduce without human's intervention? It's impossible! Only creation could explain the existence of pig and cow.
Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

I would like to begin by offering the following definitions: Hypothesis: A tentative assumption which can be tested [1]. Evolution: “a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time” [2]. With those out of the way, I defer to PRO so that he may make his case. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai

In this debate, I will be arguing that in a duel in which both contenders are equipped with armament as specified, the European (in this case Italian) Knight would have a significant advantage over the Japanese Samurai. Con will be arguing the reverse, that the Samurai would have an increased likelihood of winning. Con may not argue that there would be no advantage. Clarifications:-Only the two combatants are present -Neither combatant is on horseback-Ranged weapons will not be used-Both have recieved training that is standard for those of their class-Each are equipped with the following armament (streamlined so that the debate is more efficient):Samurai:-Iron O-Yoroi armor-KatanaKnight:-Italian-Style Steel Plate-Italian LongswordRound one is for acceptance ONLY.
Same sex marriage.

Round four defense"I am a frickin' teen! Take me out of this debate. I said I FROFEIT" nerdydork4044My opponent's statement is a red herring. "Red HerringExplanation The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe." [8] My opponent's argument has no impact upon the debate since it is off topic. Thanks for debating. Source. 8. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Same sex marriage.

Round three rebuttals"I told you! I FORFEIT! I do not stand by same-sex marriage. I FORFEIT!" nerdydork4044My opponent's argument is non-sequitur. "Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.Logical Form:Claim A is made.Evidence is presented for Claim A.Therefore, claim C is true."My opponent claims to forfeit, then states she is against same-sex marriage. This is confusing, adds little to support the conclusion, and is contradictory.Source.7. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...