BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Withdrawing life-support should not be to end life, but for other purposes

This means that withdrawing life-support should never be equivalent in intent to euthanasia. That is, it should never have the explicit purpose of ending a life. In Terri Shiavo's case, for instance, the explicit purpose of withdrawing life-support was to end her life. This was wrong, and is the reason why it was so widely opposed. Instead, withdrawing life support or denying it from the beginning must be about a broader desire to, for instance, live life naturally and without artificial support, spend as much time as possible with family without the interruption of life-support, or to live life naturally without the interruptions, discomfort or pain of life support. And, of course, withdrawing or denying life-support can also include death as the end result, but that death should never be the central purpose of the act.
The ill will feel pressure to seek euthanasia to avoid burdening family

The dying have a profound sense of shame and guilt, being in the condition that they are, and causing their family substantial burdens and strains. If euthanasia is available, they may choose it simply out of this sense of guilt, which would be wrong. No regulations can prevent this from occurring, particularly because the patient would give the appearance of choosing euthanasia completely voluntarily. And, it would be voluntary, but in the context of guilt, rather than self-interest.
It is a moral duty to attempt to prevent suicide in general; euthanasia too.

If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his or her choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die.
Euthanasia doctors don't "kill", they help individuals die who want to

It is false to claim that the state or doctors are choosing to euthanize individuals. Doctors and the state make no choice at all, accept to permit and empower individuals to make their own choice to die or not. Any argument against euthanasia that is premised on the notion that it is wrong for one individual to kill or harm another misses this critical point; euthanasia only involves governments and doctors allowing patients to harm/kill themselves. It is a case of of the state and doctors allowing individuals to exercise their own liberties, rather than of the state or doctors taking any liberties away from the patient.
Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified

Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity.
Eligibility for euthanasia requires that patients meet strict criteria.

The criteria involved in the proposals to legalize euthanasia are very detailed and would be enforced very strictly. Breaking from these criteria even minutely would be very difficult, which means that the potential of a slippery slope to forced euthanasias, murders, and other abuses is virtually impossible. While minor infractions of the criteria are possible, the gloomy "slippery slope" scenarios argued by opponents of euthanasia are virtually impossible.
Trained physicians are qualified to aid patients in decision to die

Margaret Battin, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, University of Utah. "Is a Physician Ever Obligated to Help a Patient Die?," Regulating How We Die. 1998: "Suicide assisted by a humane physician spares the patient the pain and suffering that may be part of the dying process, and grants the patient a 'mercifully' easy death."
If breastfeeders must cover; meateaters should eat under table

Nick Heskin. "Breasts are *For* Feeding Babies!" Answer Bag. April 26th, 2010: "Those who suggest that women should always use blankets or pump and feed a bottle when out (or use formula), or retire to their car or a restroom might as well suggest that those who eat meat should eat it under the table when out so as not to offend vegetarians."
Breastfeeding more decent than other displays of breasts

Elizabeth Pantley. "There is More “Breast” in the Media Than Seen During Breastfeeding." On Opposing Views.com: "Breastfeeding women are routinely asked to cover their babies or retire to a bathroom stall in the name of decency. At the same time, magazines and movies routinely showcase breasts as glamorous. A woman at work often shows more cleavage than is exposed during breastfeeding, and a summer beach is a sea of nearly-naked breasts. This is a baffling double standard. Why are some people so afraid of seeing a breastfeeding mother?"
Public breastfeeding allows feeding whenever baby is hungry

Lindsey Nelson. "Breastfeeding Mothers Deserve Freedom of Movement." FirstRight Advisory Council Member on Opposing Views: "In order to achieve an optimal breastfeeding relationship, it is recommended that women breastfeed their child directly from the breast at the first hunger cues[2]. Children, especially the youngest babies, do not often have predictable feeding schedules and should not be required to wait to be fed or nurtured. It is not uncommon for a child to nurse for twenty or more minutes at a time and sometimes as often as once every hour or two[3]. Pumping milk into bottles for when the family is away from home, attempting to time outings around feedings or to slip away to a restroom or vehicle force mothers and children into isolation, may be detrimental to a successful breastfeeding relationship and are unrealistic expectations."
Breastfeeding does not necessarily help women lose weight

Salma Hayek argued: "I gained a lot of weight, I had gestational diabetes. The pregnancy was really difficult for me. I thought, as soon as this baby is out, I’m just going to lose the weight super fast, because I’m going to breast feed, and everybody tells you that if you breastfeed it’s going to come out like this, it’s a lie! It’s not true. Except for a couple of exceptions, the only reason people lose weight like that when they’re breastfeeding, it’s because they’re not eating and they’re breastfeeding, and this is not good for the baby. You know how they tell you it takes nine months to get it, nine months to lose it? There are shortcuts, but it’s not good for the baby. So I’m taking my time. I’ve lost a lot, most of the weight, and I’m very proud of it because it’s been really hard work studying what kind of food to eat that’s healthy for me, healthy for the baby. But I’m still losing even if it’s slow, and I’ve been working out… and the rest is going to go when it’s time to go.”[2]
Breastfeeding in public is legal almost everywhere

Nancy Solomon. "Breastfeeding in Public Is a Basic Civil Right." WEnews. August 7, 2002: "What many people do not know is that breastfeeding in public is legal in every state. A mother does not need to "cover up" or go somewhere more private. More than half of states have laws specifically protecting this right, but even in those that do not, it is still legal to breastfeed in public."
Breasts are also for sex; public breastfeeding indecent.

Laurence Thomas. "Breastfeeding in Public and the Question of Sexism." Moral Health. 25 March 2009: "Unequivocally, breasts are also sex objects; and this is a fact that does not change simply in virtue of the reality that a woman is breast-feeding. [...] Of course, any decent man (not married to the woman) will look the other way should a woman pull out her breast in order to feed her child. And that, interestingly, enough is just the point. A decent man would look the other way precisely because he would want to avoid the schizophrenia of the situation, namely that of admiring the woman’s breast while she is in the midst of engaging in a motherly function. The woman’s husband, on the other hand, might very well admire her breast while she is breastfeeding. And there is a very straightforward way in which his doing so can be just right. That is the woman whose breasts he caressed and fondled as she and he were engaged in the very act of love-making that gave rise to the very child that she is presently nursing."
Breasts are for breastfeeding, not sex

Lindsey Nelson. "Breasts are For Breastfeeding." First Right Advisory Council Member on Opposing Views.com: "In the United States we are barraged with sexualized images of women, often prominently feature the breasts. From televised advertisements for lingerie to red carpet fashion to magazine covers, to video games, images of sexualized breasts are a fact of our daily lives. In contrast, images of mothers breastfeeding their children are decidedly rare. Despite our culture’s seeming insistence to the contrary, a woman's breasts are a functional body part intended to nourish our young."
"Don't ask don't tell makes gays second class citizens

Anna Quindlen. "The End Of An Error". Newsweek. April 4, 2009 - "When it became law in 1993, the policy was sold as an attempt to allow gays to serve if they did not discuss their orientation or participate in homosexual acts—that is, if they lived a life of pretense and self-denial not required of straight counterparts. Shame and second-class status were therefore built into the deal, and unsurprisingly led to a reality in which exemplary soldiers were harassed, investigated and expelled based on "evidence" as negligible as friendly banter or thoughtless gossip."
Gay activism in military undermines professionalism

John Luddy. "The Military Gay Ban: Why Don't Ask, Don't Tell Don't Work". Heritage Foundation, Executive Memorandum #359. July 1, 1993 - "Political activism elsewhere in society suggests that weakening the ban would be followed by quotas and lawsuits if homosexuals were not promoted in representative numbers. This would destroy the cohesion of a military unit, and erode the military's successful merit-based promotion system."
Rationale for military ban on gays is a shifting target

Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable": "It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so."
Gays in military more popular because opponents being bashed

Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009: "Opinion polls have shown the public shifting in favor of gays in the military, including a recent Gallup poll which found that 'Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69 percent to 63 percent.' That is mostly because there are few leaders who wish to give voice to opposing points of view. They fear being shouted down, or being accused of 'homophobia.'"
Abandoning "don't ask don't tell" will decrease violence against gays

Dr. Aaron Belkin. "Abandoning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will decrease anti-gay violence." Palm Center. May 1, 2005: "Lessons from foreign armed forces, as well as U.S. police and fire departments that have lifted their bans, reveal that, in the worst case, lifting the gay ban will have no impact on the level of anti-gay abuse. But in the more likely scenario, lifting the ban should decrease violence. [...] After the British lifted the ban, however, there were few reports of gay-bashing. Professor Gwyn Harries-Jenkins, a leading expert on the British military, reported 'a slight decrease in the incidence of harassment.' [...] The reason why anti-gay violence does not increase, and usually decreases after the lifting of a ban is that victims of abuse are able to report harassment without fearing an investigation into their own sexuality. Perpetrators know that victims are more likely to report them, and are therefore less likely to engage in misbehavior in the first place."
Gays make an immoral choice the military need not tolerate

Many argue that homosexuality is a choice, rather than an inherent trait that warrants protection and toleration. It would follow from this that the military is not obligated to accept or tolerate gays, or gays serving openly. One white female US military officer was quoted in the book "Gays and lesbians in the military" as saying: "It is a moral choice - people aren't born homosexual, they choose (though some can have some tendencies - they can be cured). It is a sin."[17]
Don't ask don't tell wrongly forces gay servicemen to lie

"‘Dont Ask, Don’t Tell’ Hurts ROTC, Too". The Cornell Daily Sun. February 14th, 2008 - "[Army Col. Stewart] Bornhoft says "don't ask, don't tell" harms the armed forces because "A simple question of what [you did] this weekend, you can't answer truthfully if you spent it with gay friends. It legally mandates that [LGBT service members] be less than honest and prevents them from having the same rights that other service members have when it comes to spousal benefits or housing allowances or notices to next of kin or simply kissing loved ones when you deploy to defend the country."
Gays are natural not immoral, should be accepted in armies

"Gays in the US military." Religious tolerance: "In the past, gays and lesbians were not permitted in any of the armed forces in the West. Most countries have abandoned their anti-gay policies in recent years, as mental health professionals determined that a homosexual orientation is fixed, and unchosen, a normal and natural orientation for a minority of adults, and not a mental illness. Among the armies in the Western industrialized world, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK allow gays and lesbians to serve freely."
"Don't ask don't tell" puts commanders in compromising position

Om Prakash. "The Efficacy of Don't Ask Don't Tell." Winning essay of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition: "DADT also represents a unique challenge for commanders. Normally charged with knowing everything about their troops, commanders are now trying to avoid certain areas for fear of being accused of conducting witch hunts38 or looking as if they are selectively enforcing a law they have moral reservations against. Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN, stated, 'Everyone was living a big lie—the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn’t want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law.'"
"Don't ask don't tell" invites hearsay accusations

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No, Just Don't Be." Jezebel. Feb 11 2009 - "Amy Brian enlisted in the military for 3 years in the 90s, and then came back in 2003 only to be deployed to Iraq. But it was a trip to Wal-Mart that did her in. [...] In that trip, a civilian co-worker at the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office saw Brian kiss her girlfriend. So despite not asking nor telling, she was kicked out of the military. [...] The federal law states the military must have proof of the homosexual conduct, an admission from the soldier or an attempt or successful application for marriage to another gay person by the soldier. [...] Apparently, 'proof' is one person noticing that you're living your personal life on your own terms, and requires no corroboration."
Individual prejudice should not drive military policy

C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington, said in March 2007, "General Pace1s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces. [...] As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks."[18]
"Don't ask don't tell" punishes citizens coming-out of closet]

"Editorial: Don't ask, don't tell, just act." Emerald Editorial Board. October 15, 2009: "On National Coming Out Day this past Monday, more than 80 students signed their names to a list that appeared on the back page of the Emerald. The list declared the students, along with professors, co-workers, alumni and friends, among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer members of our community. It was an act of courage, even in the mostly welcoming city of Eugene, considering signing one’s name under the LGBTQ section of the list is enough to be disqualified from serving in the nation’s military."
Unhealthy homosexuality undermines military readiness

Robert Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007 - "The other component of combat effectiveness is readiness, medical and personnel. In 1993, the Army’s surgeon general conceded that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. A Navy study has found that HIV infections within the force have declined since passage of the 1993 ban. This has likely saved the taxpayer medical costs. It is significant that HIV positive service members, although retained in the military, may not be deployed overseas or on ships."
If "immoral" gays banned from military, ban adulterers too

A white female military officer was quoted in the book "Gays and Lesbians in the Military," as saying: "About moral choices, let's not let people who have had premarital sex or an affair be in the army either!!! Then there would be no one protecting our country. And bible bashers need to reread the section that says he without guilt should cast the first stone."[19]
"Don't ask don't tell is inconsistent with conservative ideals

"Obama needs to dump 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' now." Examiner. October 12, 2009: "The true conservative respects the principles of liberty and privacy, the principles of meritocracy, and the armed forces our nation has charged to defend it. But "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" undermines all three. [...] True conservatives respect individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in privacy of the bedroom. It's the last place a government should be poking its nose. Anything else is nothing but an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens."
Homosexuality is incompatible with military culture and service

Homosexuality is simply incompatible with the principles of military services, which include a focus on the mission, service, discipline, bodily integrity, and control over one's impulses. Homosexuality does not appropriately reflect these principles. This sentiment was reflected in an article signed by Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations. They wrote, succinctly, "homosexuality is incompatible with military service".[9]
"Don't ask don't tell" has been very costly in dollars

"Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M". USA Today. February 14, 2006 - "Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says. [...] The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was at least $190.5 million. [...] 'It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs,' said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has proposed legislation that would repeal the policy."
Gays in military inevitable; lift ban sooner than later

Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" - "The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable."
Testing gay rights in the military wrongly jeopardizes efficacy

Cal Thomas. "Don't Ask, Tell or Legitimize." Townhall.com. October 15, 2009: "The military should not be a test lab. Pressure is building to put female sailors on submarines, along with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people presumably. That many heterosexuals find homosexual behavior immoral and not conducive to unit cohesion is of no concern to the social wrecking crew. [...] What gay activists apparently don't care about is the effect reshaping the military in their image would have on our ability to fight and defend the country, which, after all, is the purpose of a military."
"Don't ask don't tell" costs the military needed soldiers

Lawrence J. Korb. "The Costs of Don't Ask Don't Tell". Center for American Progress. March 2, 2009 - "Since 1994, the military’s 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 military personnel across the services[1] including approximately 800 with skills deemed 'mission critical,' such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. These are the very specialties for which the military has faced personnel shortfalls in recent years."
Military should not end "don't ask don't tell" during war

"EDITORIAL: Please don't ask again." Washington Times. October 13, 2009: "The most recent Military Times survey showed that 58 percent of military respondents oppose a policy change, and 24 percent said they would either leave the military (10 percent) or consider terminating their careers after serving their tours of duty (14 percent). [...] the White House isn't close to having military support for ending 'don't ask, don't tell.' The Obama team could be justifiably concerned that pushing change would be seen as a dangerous distraction at a time when the president is having difficulty formulating a strategy for the war in Afghanistan."
Gays do not have a "right" to military service

Robert Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007 - "The 1993 ban is premised on the fact that there is no constitutional right to serve. Thus, Congress may decide who should or should not serve. For 231 years, the US military has discriminated among potential recruits based on a variety of characteristics and behaviors, with the intent of forming the best possible force. That’s why, according to the General Accountability Office, the Pentagon discharged 59,098 service personnel for drug offenses, 26,513 for weight standards and 9,501 for homosexuality between 1993 and 2004."
Troops should be judged on performance, not orientation

Soldiers should be judged on their performance not on their sexual orientation. "Don't ask, don't tell" completely ignores performance, judging and even discarding soldiers based on their entirely irrelevant sexual orientation. A good military should be a meritocracy, rewarding good achievement and ability. "Don't ask don't tell" fails to live up to this notion, and surely suffers in its quality as a result.