BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalisation of euthanasia.

euthanasia is approved by a doctor, the patient and the close relatives. My point of ulterior motives based on greed for wealth by the relatives still hold water as a person in pain makes uninformed decisions without proper thinking. Coming to the patient who can't speak for themselves or for an instance a person in a comma, the close relatives are the ones in control if that life supporting machine and the life of the patient is in their hands especially if they are the ones paying the bills(that is if euthanasia is to be legalised). Now they will be no chance for a system to ask the patient when or not to die because comma incidences usually happen unexpectedly so the person will die just like that. Talking about pain that can easily be delt with by pain relieving injections and drugs and that makes your 50% statistics wrong because they do not die out of pain but deterioration of body cells due to the diseases. The quality of life of those not in pain do not become rubbish as they is are chances of survival like in the mandela case. Many people are living with terminal illnesses especially cancer and they are projects taking place right now of people who are fighting cancer i'm sure you see the post on facebook "give me 1000 likes i fought cancer." Now we cannot completely ignore those chances because the person faces a breakdown once and the doctor declares he/she has cancer and is suffering from pain, for God's sake pain is not a disease.Death with dignity, i like that but that is used when someone commits suicide and the army commander is free to do that because it very very legal. Illegalisation of euthanasia is not suggesting that we take the patient to the most expensive hospitals or care units it is simply suggesting that let the people die a natural death whether they are at home or in rural clinic just let them be so they is no burden in a letting a person be. The world is full of corruption and doctor's are bought by money to make false statements and obviously a person in pain has no time to reconsider the statements and believe me euthanasia if allowed would definitely be abused and the fact that we all going to die is enough reason to let patients be. That is my line of argument.There is a very high risk of uninformed decisions made in pain and in stress caused by terminal illnesses. Everyone deserves a chance to fight for life why take it away. I believe euthanasia is murder and thus should not be made legal.
Legalisation of euthanasia.

Before I start I am going to tell you how I plan on euthanasia on being used if it were to be legalised. Firstly euthanasia can only happen when a doctor has confirmed that a person has an in curable and/or painful disease that will seriously effect someone's life. Also a system will be put in place that will need everyone to say weather or not, at a certain age, they wish to be euthanized if they are unable to speak for themselves. Not only would this prevent the people speaking in pain but prevent people killing off family for their riches (btw. That is a very clich" point). Now on to my points. You said that everyone that has a terminal illness is going to die someday so why speed up the process. This point is extremely stupid and after hearing this point I'm sure you will find it hard to disagree. More than 50% of terminally ill people die in pain. Speeding up the process would save them a whole lot of pain. As for those that are not in pain their quality of life would be rubbish. What can you do whilst paralysed from the neck down. Not a lot. Also the terminally I'll need around the clock caring for. This May force those being cared for feel like a serious burden to their family and/or carer. Euthanasia would enable the terminally ill to die, happy, knowing that their family is happy. My final point ( I have many more but I don't want to use them all) is on death with dignity. For this I am going to set a scene for you. There is a retired army officer. He was very highly ranked and in his older age had a fatal accident that paralysed him from the neck down. As a highly respected person in society he is easily when his carer has to clean up after him when he unwarily Poos himself. When he dies he wants to be seen as a respectable figure. However as euthanasia isn't legal he must die ashamed of himself as he is now known an up respectable figure. That's all for now and I will be interested to see your response.
Legalisation of euthanasia.

really that's how you feel i believe that there is no one who is 100% healthy. we all lack something and at one point we are going to break down when those deficiencies go deeper. that a natural situation and anyone can face it and when it reaches a point of death then its fine we will bury you because everyone is going to die someday. for this fact only i have a reason to argue with the legalisation of euthanasia, if you know that person with a terminal illness is going to die someday why speed up the process. someone may seem to ill like in the case of nelson mandela but in actual fact they may get better as he did when the family members tried to perfom euthanasia on him and i really believe that everyone deserves a chance to fight for his life and he fails that's it euthanasia is abused by greedy family members or heirs that will be eager to inherit a family member's wealth or estate in some cases companies. now can we allow someone's death all because of some relative's concern who in actual fact wants to inherit wealth. i hereby firmly disagree with euthanasia for it is a disguise of real murder. some people face impossible pain especially when it comes to euthanasia and they ask for it. its a painful period and a healthy person knows that decisions made in pain are extreme and are not considered at most times so the point of it being a patient's choice does not justify anything this decisions come due to financial imbalance or the doctor's report but as i said earlier if everyone is going to die someday then if they by any chance are found to be still living let them be. life is the only valuable thing the world can name because everything else comes from and the best we can do is to try and keep it until it decides to stop not us i think the world still has a lot of space for everyone then what is the problem
Legalisation of euthanasia.

Before I start I just want to inform you that a comma is a punctuation mark used to indicate a pause in a sentence or separate items in a list. A coma (C-O-M-A) on the other hand is a prolonged state of deep unconsciousness, caused especially by severe injury or illness. I just wanted to make that clear to you as you seem not to know the difference. Anyway, on to my points. I am aware that, if my system were to be put in place, there will be cases where a person doesn't confirm that they wish to euthanize. I also am aware that there isn't much we can do about it apart from reducing the likelihood of it happening. The way in which we can do this is ask, yearly from the age of 20, via the mail if they wish to be euthanized when in an irreversible (notice the irreversible) coma. Now you said that people can have injections to reduce pain, but seriously, would you want to be taking injections daily to fight of a pain that will lead to an even more painful death? Also I did not say that the people would die OF pain but IN pain. Two different things. You also mentioned that the quality of life wouldn't be affected. Well quality of life and death are two different things. Quality of life is how enjoyable your life is, in this case whilst with an irreversible disease. As for your next point about 1000 likes on Facebook, well, it isn't very clear so if you could explain that in your next argument I would appreciate it. Death with dignity doesn't only apply to suicide. What I mean is the soldier (this doesn't have to be a soldier it could be anyone from a doctor to a teacher) is embarrassed because of their actions whilst unaware of them. Letting someone live whilst they have motor neurone disease, for example, is silly. Again, what can you do whilst paralysed from the neck down, I ask you? Now for your final paragraph. You said that doctors could be payed to kill of people not wanting euthanasia. Firstly all physicians follow a physicians code of ethics. This is a list of rules that all physicians must follow. One of these is 'physicians can not allow his/her judgment to be influenced by personal profit or unfair discrimination. Any doctor not to follow this rule can be kicked out of the system for good. Of course there will be the odd one or two that still would get banned, but worrying about that is like saying we should ban school (as much as I wouldn't mind it) because you are afraid teachers might get paid to give better grades. Finally you said that you believe that euthanasia is murder. It isn't. When someone is about to euthanize, and this is a fact, they are given the pills that will kill them pain free and are reminded that they will die if they take the pills. You may use the argument, but their decisions might be wrong as they are in pain. But you wouldn't argue that because you would be contradicting yourself. You even said that there are injections and drugs to relieve the pain, therefore the decision would be in the right mind. That's all for now Toodles! :)
Socialized health care is better than private market health care

The debate topic is : Socialized health care is better than a private market health care. In which I would like to point out that my opponent has to prove a socialized health care system is better than the private system. However I only have to disprove that its not better and I don't have to argue that private market health care is better but that they are the same or socialized health care is worse. Case: Ct1. The point in a socialized health care system is that taxes will rise, government taxes will pay for those who cannot pay. Now one might say thats a good thing, however do you believe we should pay our taxes for a smoker who wouldn't quit and you now have to pay for his surgery. Our the extremely fat people which we deem the word obese. Not trying to say that medical reasons isn't the reason but some majority of the obese is because parents don't know how to stop getting Mc donalds everyday for their kid. We all have to pay for that, you would definitely will see a giant taxe increase and burden the people. Ct2. As well as when the government gets their hands on the hospitals in america, they will soon be controlled by the politics of congress. Just like the global gag rule, which when bush was elected re-enacted which tied strings to the funds we gave to hospitals in other country's. These hospital's could not even utter the word abortion or they would have their funding taken away. Just like that imagine that but at home, soon as a republican is elected, no more abortions would be allowed. Any kind of operation they disagreed with could be restricted, politics would ruin medical care. Ct3. Malpractice Cost would cause even higher taxes. Ct4. Doctors, Nurses, and etc, would lose jobs in the transition from private to socialized medical care. Ct5.Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Ct6.Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients,and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact.

I wouldn't say that is experience though. Jane Austen did not experience any Mr. Darcy-like people in her life, and she also didn't experience her own marriage or her sisters. I agree that we never make anything completely up however I disagree with the statement "All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact". A lot of fiction is inspired by real life experiences of the author and therefore it may be somewhat autobiographical. Jane Austen's characters were not all based on experiences, they were inspired by people in her life. None of her books were fact, they were somewhat autobiographical. But then if you're arguing that Jane Austen correctly describes the color of the sky and grass and that the colors she discusses and other small information like the fact that grass exists makes her books partially fact, I would have to agree.
All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact.

Your arguement i that Jane Austen did not write from personal experience, however you note how many of the main characters and others close tothe main character were indeed very like those of the people around her at the time. Those people where facts due to their existence, they were real. And so if Austen had the people she knew at the time in her mind while creating her characters, then those people becamethe characters. I also note how i did not say that the stories were fact, mereily based on factual experiences of the author and the people they knew, therefore becoming partially factual themselves. I would imagine that if you tried to write a story of complete fition now yu would bring into it characters based on friend or family. Or blue aliens with speckled flakes - but is that truely fiction, because blue is a real colour and speckled flakes an e foun on lizards or snakes. Therefore how can that possibly be fiction?
All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact.

All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact. Let us begin by returning hundreds of thousands of years to the times of the cavemen, who drew on cave walls their day to day life. If you study these carvings most of the time they depict men with spears chasing what appear to be wooly mammoths or some other type of animal. If you study some of the classics for example Persuasion by Jane Austen. In the beginning of her novel she depicts how a friend of the family persuades the heroine to break of her engagement to a captain. Austen used sailors in her novels frequently due to 2 of her brothers being of this occupation. Several warm hearted families are also depicted in her novel, contrasting favorably with Anne's own family, in which she is overlooked by her vain and rank-proud Baronet father and her cold and selfish elder sister. She is using what she knows (Fact) to write the fiction. Persuasion was also the most romantic of Jane Austen's many novels and thus the one which has given rise to the most speculation about her own affairs of the heart. Jane Austen also puts her own location preferences into the novel as the heroine likes the seaside town of Lyme but not that of Bath. Also, the way morals are presented not only in persuasion but also in her other novels such as Pride and Prejudice is factual to the times. For example, the way families all wanted their daughter(s) to marry the rich high society aristocrats. And also the asking of fathers permission to marry their daughters. Another author who began several books due to factual events is the renowned writer, Roald Dahl. While he attended Repton Public School For Boys, he and his peers would be asked by cadbury to sample several chocolate bars an critique them. This led to the beginning of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory due to Dahl dreaming of working in a chocolate factories inventory. If cadbury hadnt asked the boys to sample their chocolates, who Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ever have been written? I bet you didn't know either that the film "Gremlins" Was based on one of Dahl's stories of how gremlins sabotaged his plane. If he had not been in the RAF would this story ever have been written? It was in his later years that he wrote Matilda, in which the headmistress is a beast perhaps based upon Dahl's experiences as a child, being beaten and punished by many head masters. The third great author i refur to is possibly the most famous of all: Charles Dickens. To begin with, it was while in a workhouse that it is believed dickens found the compassion he showed in his literature such as Oliver Twist, and perhaps the personal experiences he encountered such as those dipicted in his novels. Many characters in his novels were also based upon his younger sister, mary for example Rose Maylie (Oliver Twist) and Agnes Wickfield (David Copperfield). All of Dickens' novels were based upon the squalour of the times and also his experinces and family. All fiction is based on experiences of the author and therefore it may be partially fact.
Gossip Girl is the best TV show!

Massivedump has really good arguments, but I don't know how willing I am to debate reviews, ratings, and other people's opinions. I was kind of more interested in hearing his own take on the how his show is better than gossip girl :P Anyways, I forgot about this debate, and the time limit looks like it is just about to expire, so I won't have time to go ever each show in detail. If this means my opponent should win the debate, than that okay, as this was more for fun for me anyway, though I am thinking of trying something more serious soon. As of right now, I just ask that my opponent and his silly username just give his own opinion on why his shows are better like he kind of did with my little pony. Which still makes me giggle by the way... But yes, my arguments are based on my own opinions. I would like to hear yours as well!
Gossip Girl is the best TV show!

All the arguments my opponent presented are based solely on opinion. However, the reviews on the international Movie Database et. al. beg to differ on my opponent's unprecidented beliefs:Seinfeld: "the brilliance of Seinfeld lies... in the endless, pointlessly smug and nihilistic banter that almost invariably escalates into some of TV's classic lines... Surely, we won't find something like this again, for many more years to come."http://www.imdb.com...That doesn't sound very boring to me.Mythbusters: Believe it or not, non-fictional TV is making a comeback. We see this quite often in Pawn Stars, Duck Dynasty, and of course, Mythbusters."Rarely do we, the television audience, experience the privilege of a show [like this] that is equal parts educational and entertaining." http://www.imdb.com...The Late Late Show:"Tries to be too dramatic," my opponent, on the host of a comedy show. Beyond that, all of her contentions are based on her own opinions once again. "He is brilliant... no matter who comes on the show, he will leave you rolling on the floor laughing. Why can't we have Craig come on earlier? He is a natural born comedian. Craig is such a pleasure to watch, he does not have to jump around, walk funny or act like fool to make us laugh."http://www.imdb.com...;The Andy Griffith ShowLike my opponent so generously stated, It is in fact the ninth best show in TV history. Above Gossip Girl. Because guess what? Black and White TV does not necessarily mean bad TV.""The Andy Griffith Show" is probably the greatest sitcom of all time. The writing, the direction, the characters, and the stories all combined to make one of the greatest television shows of any era."http://www.imdb.com...;Bill Cosby:My opponent is VERY misinformed. Firstly, the Bill Cosby Show is in color, not black and white. Second, it ran for four seasons, not two. My opponent offered no factual statement here, so there's no rebuttal necessary.Mario:This show is as deep as it gets. It's the most amazing thing ever, and this contention is no more subjective than my opponent's/My Little Pony: Interesting. My opponent claims that because it doesn't appeal to my demographic, it must be bad. But on the contrary, millions of male fans called "bronies" have formed a fandom of this show that far surpasses the fandom of Gossip Girl. It possesses positive qualities in an enjoyable way that no other show on TV seems to do anymore.http://knowyourmeme.com...Gossip GirlIt seems the best TV show ever has abysmal ratings."Gossip Girl" kicked off its final season to abysmal ratings. The Season 6 premiere had less than 1 million viewers. About 800,000 people tuned in to see the elite Upper East Siders begin their final season."http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Bottom Line:Ratings > Reviews > Opinions.
Gossip Girl is the best TV show!

Congratulations on a lot of debates! You have nice... hair... :) -Seinfeld Boring, same setting, Same characters, same bad acting. Meh. -Mythbusters This show isn't entertaining!! It's informative, and boring! Who cares about about a bunch of silly cooks teaching you random useless information about movies which are obviously supposed to be fake?! Mythbusters, uh, no thankyou. -The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson Again, boring. Tries to be too dramatic, and seriously, talking about the death of your parents on national TV? That is a big no-no. Puppets? Is this a little kids show? His humor isn't really funny, and talk shows are rally just boring and repetitive. This is really not good like Gossip Girl is XD -The Andy Griffith Show Worse than the above. How did this get 9th best show in TV history? it's sooooo boring. Its black and white! What are we color blind? I can see my grandma liking this show, but this is so last century. What a bad example, no offense ;-) -The Bill Cosby Show Only two seasons, of boring people, doing boring stuff, in boring ways, with boring boring boring BLEH!! Black and white, makes it just that much more... Well you know... BORING! haha. -The Super Mario Super Show http://www.youtube.com... I just watched the video! What did you make me do!?! HAHA. It was funny I'll admit, but it's a bad quality show. Seems to be made off the popular video game series. Anyways, it's not deep, and its made for little kids, so the show falls once again, into BORING!!!! haha XD -My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. You have to be kidding right? This is a show for little girls!!! And you are a boy.... I think you are joking, but in case you aren't, this show too is boring because its meant for kids not adults. Or I guess you are still a kid.. Buttttt yeah, kind of a silly show... :P Gossip Girl is better than all of these! The only bad part about Gossip Girl is Kristen Bell. Other than that, it is a really crazy good show with great plot twists, and serena is a good character. She is a good actor, and has awesome lines. The show has good plot twists, and is very interesting. I recommend the show for any one, even boys. Thats all I guess!
Gossip Girl is the best TV show!

I accept, and proudly proclaim this my fiftieth debate. I ask Pro to prove that Gossip Girl is superior to the following counterexamples:-Seinfeld-Mythbusters-The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson-The Andy Griffith Show-The Bill Cosby Show-The Super Mario Super ShowAND OBVIOUSLY. .. -My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. If even one of these shows prove superior to Gossip Girl in some aspect, Gossip Girl is not the best TV Show.
Gender Violence and Discrimination of Women

At one point in American history your point would have been valid but it is not in this day in age. In this day in age women can act as they please they are not forced to stay at home and tend to the family. They can be anything they want to be from a CEO to a fire-fighter to a astronaut. With this said there are some basic physiological differences between men and women that must be taken into account when considering why women are treated unequally in certain fields of work especially ones requiring manual and strenuous labor. Personally do not understand your tangent on racism and the civil rights movement. What does it matter who was the lowest person on the social totem poll at one point in the past. Minority rights in general have increased dramatically in the last 160 years.