BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Water is a toxic/addictive substance

Please note that Pro drops my argument rebuttal "Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor" untouched. First off, my sources are not your business to decide weather not they are "reliable" it is the voter's job. Also please capitalize your *I. Its are always suppose to be capitalized. Pro say's ".(i would like to add the that majority of this rebuttal was copied/pasted from the website just mentioned I cited the source, there is nothing wrong with copy and pasting it. So what's the major malfunction? Now let's start the rebuttals.. Rebuttal's Pro Rebuttal 2: You cant become addicted to water. Sure, its something you need to survive. Take this for example, the girl who didn't drink water for more then 3 days, but still survived. (http://www.theatlantic.com...) You can't use Alcohol as an example. People become addicted to Alcohol because it makes them feel "good" because they become drunk. You can't get drunk off of water. Pro Rebuttal 3: Again, you can't use Alcohol as an example like I have explained above ^^ Pro Rebuttal 4: Well what is there to argue now? This doesn't make sense; We need water to survive, yet it's toxic and addicting ad you can die. *Note that whatever sources Pro used, he plagiarized because he didn't show us which quotes were from a source and he didn't put them in parentheses, he only put my quotes in parentheses.
Water is a toxic/addictive substance

Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor Most water dosent come from vapor in the air, it comes from streams and then is purified. [1] "Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air. Rebuttal#2 The average person can only survive 3 days without water. First off, how dose this support your fact that it is addictive or toxic? It dosent fit in either category. Rebutal#3 Everyone who has come in contact with water has died. First, you say we NEED water to survive, now if we come near it we die? This makes NO sense what so ever. Argument #1 You need water to survive, but this dosent make it addicting. Some people can go more than 3 days without water ad be fine. So here are important reasons as to why we need water! Get Healthy Skin Flush Toxins Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Attack Cushion And Lube Your Joints And Muscles Get Energized And Be Alert Stay Regular Reduce Your Risk Of Disease And Infection Regulate Your Body Temperature Burn More Fat And Build More Muscle Get Well Sources: [1]https://answers.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.lifehack.org...
Water is a toxic/addictive substance

I am very aware of the fact that anyone who has began to read this has already dismissed any possibility that what water is toxic/addictive but that is the very reason why i have decided to open up this debate. For my opening argument i will start by saying a few facts which i believe will not need sources(since most people have learned these things in elementary. Fact 1: Water can be found in the air as water vapor Fact 2:The average person can only survive 3 days without water. This last fact may seem stupid or invalid but when you think it through it is absolutely true. Fact 3: Everyone who has come in contact with water has died. yes i know that fact 3 seems quite irrational because"We need water to survive"and "everyone dies eventually" But i would like to prove that this has not always been the case. The human race along with many other organisms have become dependent on water over time rather than always needing it, and the long term effect of constantly consuming water has resulted in the death of organisms . Once again this is a fairly bizarre but please bare with me and hear my explanation. Now to continue i would like to ask you a question. Have you ever noticed all of the different things that your body does to get a hold of water. This list includes constantly breathing to take in oxygen which is one of the main chemicals in water, storing so much water in our body that it makes up 60% of our body content(i would suppose that our body uses this as a reserve), and our body makes us nauseous , dizzy and will often times make us pass out if we do not satisfy it with water. ( this sounds like what happens when people begin to have withdrawals of a drug. Coincidence, i think not. ) Round 2 conclusion: I know that i have thrown out a lot of information and i have yet to explain how water is toxic/addictive. Now i will take the time to explain it. To do this i will first have to explain what an addiction is. Addiction- a chronic brain disease that causes compulsive substance use despite harmful consequences. Water is a perfect match for this definition because our body is constantly forcing us to intake water although it is harmful. Water is harmful because it runs through our entire body our entire life and while doing so it is weakening everything it comes in contact with. some people consider this to be an effect of aging when in reality it is an effect water. So to sum things up our bodies have become addicted to water, This is the reason for people die. (not including pain stimulated deaths) If the con wishes to counter she can or she wishes bring her own arguments as to why water is not toxic/addictive she may do so as well. Source(s) www. psychiatry. org/addiction
Water is a toxic/addictive substance

Pro will have the BOP to show that water is addictive and toxic. He must show me and the voters legible facts to back up his claim. Since Pro didn't define any definitions, I shall do so myself. Addictive: of a substance, thing, or activity) causing or likely to cause someone to become addicted to it. Toxic: poisonous. Sources: . https://www.google.com... . https://www.google.com... I await your argument!
Closing Sweatshops will do More Harm Than Good

Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, once said "why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land". (1) What Krugman is saying here is that without sweatshops people in countries with low average incomes, such as Indonesia as Krugman stated, would be worse off. For example, in Bangladesh 77% of Bangladeshis earn less than $2.00 a day, yet sweatshops average more than $2.00 a day there. (2) This is the same in other countries with sweatshops. In fact, an article by the New York Times revealed how many people in Cambodia would rather work in sweatshops than in rural jobs. (3) If sweatshops were to be closed people would have to be working worse jobs, or else they wouldn't be working there in the first place. This is one of the main reasons that people in first world countries don't work in sweatshops, there are better alternatives. Of course, today's first world countries haven't always been free of sweatshops. For example, after the Korean War South Korea was left in ruins. (4) As a result, South Korea began using a lot of sweatshop and now South Korea has a strong economy, international companies such as Hyundai and Samsung, and is often noted for having one of the best education systems in the world. However, if South Korea (along with every first world country whether it's the US back in the 1800s or Singapore in the 1960s) never had sweatshops it wouldn't have reached where it is today. The reason for this, is when wealthy people (nowadays, usually foreigners) invest in sweatshops, capital and new technologies are brought in. (5) This can lead to more people becoming wealthy and educated, so soon better jobs and wages takeover and the people are more successful. 1-http://www.slate.com... 2-http://www.forbes.com... 3-http://www.nytimes.com... 4-http://mainecampus.com... 5-http://www.independent.org...
Euthanasia

First of all I conceded that my example about my father was not relevant in this debate right when I posted it. which is why I gave the warranted example of Brenda (which you never refute nor warrant (as of your last speech) why it is not a valid example). and yes there could be several other sides, which if they had been introduced into the round with viable evidence could be proof. Point being my opponent never warrants anything to their case. Every new argument in this round my opponent presents completely new ideas in which they completely and utterly fail to warrant or provide evidence for. Going on. my opponent presents another argument; but I'll be frank, I'm almost completely sure it is as content-less and unwarranted all her prior. Splice in the fact that this is a completely new argument in the last speech, and I simply don't see the need to even bother with it. Am I being rude? No, I am simply doing the same thing as my opponent and not even reading their opponent's arguments. Should I lose a conduct point. No, as my opponent has done the same thing throughout this entire round. so finally; vote Con, as my opponent has give absolutely no rhyme or reason to vote otherwise. With my remaining, I will spell the word "ham" continuously.
Euthanasia

I was not using my example for sympathy or spilling my heart out on the matter, I was just going to show a real life opposite example to the one you gave about your father. Which also could have no validity just as well as your example of Brenda, there could be several examples for either side but neither would have proof. Death is a part of life, but suffering does not have to be. Until you are in a situation who are you to say that these people should just suck it up and deal with it as a part of life while they could have the option to put an end to it? Nobody should have to suffer any longer than they are willing to. It is the patients choice, they have the right to live and they have the right to die which is why euthanasia should be legal.
Euthanasia

First on hope, as I have already proven there is always a chance some-one with a "terminal" illness can get actually get better this is giving up hope. My opponent claims that they are simply "coming to terms with it" and while that seems viable we cannot forget that the person is not dead yet; thus there is still always hope that they could get better. As for my opponent's counter example, we cannot weigh that any more than we can weigh the example of my father (which is why I supplied the example of Brenda); as there is no way to confirm it's validity. Also I would like to point out that if this where a truthful example, my opponent would have brought it up before now as opposed to my opponent's prior lackadaisical stance an the matter. Not only that but in my opponent's example her friend does not choose euthanasia. Going on, my opponent takes the realm of this debate outside of a professional level and resorts to pathos based example and personal attacks on my compassion. Beyond that allow me to point out that there is a stark differentiation between my opponent's proposed violating some-one's wishes by giving them continuing medical care and euthanizing them. First if they don't want to try and get better they have no business making it a medical situation in the first place, by imposing such a thing on a doctor they cause the doctor to violate their [5]Hippocratic oath. Since my opponent simple contends to give us no real evidence or logic but continues to be a bleeding heart on the subject; allow me to be blunt. Death and suffering are a part of life; it is sad, and it is hard but that does not mean you just throw in the towel. What that means is you fight until the very end, sucking every last bit out of life you can. as for my opponent's final argument; at this point they are becoming desperate. This claim violates their initial stance they make at the beginning of the round that the euthanasia is only viable if the person being euthanize desires it. Going on, by making a doctor make this decision they violate the doctor's Hippocratic oath. Also going on to my opponent's source; First, they never actually tells us where they analyze this in their speech, or tell what they are pulling from this source. Second, this is a list of pre-planned pro and con arguments so even if they did use these arguments it would be blatant plagiarism and I wouldn't even be debating my opponent, but some-one else. Finally, my opponent makes no notion that they even use this as a source, they simply tag it onto their case. This is obvious as the majority of their case consists of personal examples and weak logical analysis. Finishing up, my opponent still does not negate the Con stance on the matter, and still drops all their prior argumentation. So I again extend all prior arguments uncontested and ask for a Con vote in this round. Sources- [5] . http://nktiuro.tripod.com...
Euthanasia

It is not considered giving up hope, it is considered coming to terms with the fact that you are dying and there is not much more you can do. As you had mentioned your father came back from being terminally ill, I have had the opposite of that experience where my best friend was dying of a terminally ill disease. She herself could feel herself dying and her body slowing shutting down and she had come to terms with it, she was suffering and knew what was happening. Had there been an option for her to put an end to her pain and die peacefully, I think she would have considered it, I obviously however can not and will not speak for her. But I believe there definitely should be a choice, for voluntary euthanasia. No one should be forced to stay alive, and I don't find it right that doctors should do everything that they can to keep them alive if the patient themselves have made it clear that they no longer wish to stay alive. Insisting on keeping them alive against their wishes is not fair and uncompassionate. I'm sorry, but if you cannot respect someone's dying wishes, then that makes you extremely uncompassionate. Not only that, but keeping a person alive who has come to terms with their dying is not medically sound. You can only keep someone alive for so long and if someone does not wish to drag out their already little time, I don't believe they should be forced to be kept alive. Also, There is a difference between living and artificial life, If a person is in such a state then it seems only humane to let them die, especially if it is their wish. In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation. Euthanasia should be considered a natural extension of patient's rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems against the patient's wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable pain and suffering? Isn't the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic even if they have come to terms with it and accepted it? One issue that may arise would be the family, and relatives who may misuse the euthanasia rights for wealth inheritance does not hold true. The reason being even with the absence of euthanasia , the relatives can withdraw the life support systems that could lead to the early death of the patient as welll. This can be considered as passive involuntary euthanasia. Here they aren't actively causing the death, but passively waiting for it without the patient's consent. source:http://www.buzzle.com...
Euthanasia

Now looking at the debate thus far, my opponent still utterly fails to warrant any argument on their case, defend any of the attacks I've made on their case, or to attack my case at all. So everything before this round must go to the con; so for my responses in this round, I will deal only with arguments my opponent has made this round. So first off going to their extension on saying that we still can't look to such unlikely events; One, my opponent never warrants this claim but instead opts to a technique known as "Reject The Aff (or in this case the con)" where they simply doubt my claim with no viable reason and as that you just simply not vote on it. Two, My opponent never covers my claims in the prior round, so we can extend these forward as direct defenses toward her already baseless claims. now secondly my opponent actually accepts the fact I present concerning how medicine is advancing so rapidly everyday, but still goes on to make the baseless claim that when people are so far along in whatever terminal illness they have they simply give up on life. One, not only is this untrue on so many levels, but my opponent has yet to warrant such a claim. whereas I have provided direct evidence proving the converse in the case of Brenda [3] Two, this is still a horrible thing for anyone who believes in medicine to claim; as it it kills all hope some-one could have in getting better. It is simply giving up So I ask you to vote Con as my opponent still give you no reason to vote them up; whereas I do. Thank you :D
Euthanasia

We just cannot base such an argument on luck and good fortune, simply because if one person happens to miraculously recovers or lives longer than the expectancy that was given to them, that unfortunately does not necessarily mean that every single person who is diagnosed terminally ill will do so as well. Which is why we cannot base the argument on the slight chance of that, although I wish we could. I'm not saying that the new and improved medicines and treatments are unimportant. Rather I'm saying, if a person is ill enough and suffering enough to consider assisted suicide, they are most likely to stop their treatments anyway, which would only lead to the previously mentioned illness side effects. If they are choosing to stop treatments, it is most likely that they are going to die sooner rather than later, and euthanasia puts off the prolonged sickness and suffering they would be experiencing without receiving their treatments anyway.
Euthanasia

So for maximum clarity, I will structure my next round as follows. First, refutations. Second, Defenses. Finally extensions and closing arguments. So first, my opponent makes the claim that you cannot base an argument on simple good luck and fortune, however this is fallacious on many levels. First my opponent fails to warrant this claim,she never tells us why we cannot do this. Therefore we cannot accept as an argument Second, this is untrue; if there is even the slightest possibility that this can happen (which I have already warranted there is) the it is a viable and acceptable argument. Saying otherwise with-out proving it is extremely abusive and unfair to me. Now going on, my opponent talks about some of the ill effects suffered by people in a more progressed stage of a terminal disease. They then go into detail about some of these ill effects. Now while it would seem this would be a viable argument, there are several problems arising here we must look towards. First, this is not an argument of logic, but of fact. Therefore for it to be a viable argument, it must be proven and shown to be true. Whereas the simple fact is, my opponent has not done this! Keeping this in mind, accordingly we cannot evaluate this argument. Again, I ask you to look to my provided example of Brenda who beat the odds, and did not either die, nor suffer mental disability. Finally, my opponent dismisses my claim that medicine is rapidly growing every day, by simply accepting it and claiming it's not important. They then proceed to make an unwarranted claim that prolonged suffering is cruel and unnecessary. First, again there is not warrant and thus no impact. Secondly, link this to my second and third points in my last speech, that this is really just the easy way out. There are alternatives and this option is more or so just giving a reason to give up hope. So with my opponent's stance accurately refuted, we can move on to the Con case. We see my opponent never actually attacks my case, so I'll extend it. As for extensions, my opponent makes none so we must count their prior points as drops. Finally for closing arguments, I have none as my refutations are enough to suffice my winning at this point in time. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote :3 Back to pro!
Euthanasia

My opponent states that there are cases where those who were diagnosed terminally ill do recover and that there is hope for them, however cases like that are lucky and rare. You can't base an argument off of simple luck and good fortune. People who are in the late stages of their terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them. They watch and experience the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In many cases, the illness slowly destroys 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. That being said, it is clearly more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity if they choose to. Yes, there are much more medicines and treatments today in 2011, but there are still minimal cures. Prolonged suffering is cruel and unnecessary to a person especially if they are done fighting, there is only so much a person can do while terminally ill. It must be exhausting and if after a long time they don't want to do it anymore they should have the choice to end their lives peacefully.