BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

I utterly despise Pierre Elliot Trudeau for a variety of leaders. I love my country, though when it elected him I have doubts regarding voters' judgement. In and out of office this Liberal leader would slowly destroy our country fiscally, socially, and diplomatically. Yet for some reason people adored him in his time and even now. First and foremost Trudeau's Liberals ruined our economy. He was a rich playboy, and had no fiscal restraint whatsoever. With a varierty of programs and utter disregard for frugality he started a snowball that would soon lead to Canada's half-trillion dollar deficit. Although much of this finacial distress was caused by other regimes (most prominently Mulroney's) he was the instigator and caused one of Canada's worst deficits of all time, and we wern't even at war or in a depression. He also complety disregarded traditonal social ways and would be on the forefront of defense of injust judicial descions like R. vrs Sullivan. He also encoruaged the use of taxpayer's dollars to interven in arts and culture, which was quite a waste and thankfully the Tories would later cut this :) Lastly he was a Communist syphatizer. He literally was card-carrying member for while in youth (in which he spent cowardly avoiding involvment in the crusade against Hitler) and when in power he was good friends with Castro. Worst of all he went the PRC and helped them kick Taiwan out of the UN and resumed relations with the second-worst mass murderer in history (and pedophile, but that's not really relavent), Mao Tse-Tung forgetting the atrocites conducted during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Yet he acheived rulership over my country on several occasions, voters completly ignoring the ruin brought forth. Overall I am not particually fond of Pierre Idiot Trudeau.
Euthanasia

First: where is the dignity in dying killed not your normal death? and where is the wish in taking a life from anybody? or who is he to determine that he wants no longer his life, it is really a silly desire !! I want to hear your answer. second: what in suffering? is there any solution for sopping suffering except killing? Doctors are best to answer this question, but simply they can give him some treatments that can relieve his pains. Third: ok ok free will is available for everyone, as they are free in taking their own decisions, but is there a free will in stopping a man from life ? or taking a human life ? is he an animal ? Even animals have rights to live, so the humans don't ? you said that you are against in the beginning of your argument, so are you convinced by your words ??
Euthanasia

First off, I would like to state that I am actually AGAINST Euthanasia, but I am trying to sharpen my debate skills right now. A good debater can see both sides of the issues and figure out what their opponent to say next. So this is just me experimenting a bit. Now that I have explained my real position, let me start off with some reasons why Euthanasia should be legal. 1. Dying with Dignity: If they are able to speak for themselves and they say that they would like to go ahead and peacefully die, then they should get that as their last wish. 2. Suffering: Would you rather somebody suffer for days with an imminent fate, or would you just let them be peacefully put out of their misery? I don't think that they should have to suffer. 3. Free Will: I think that if the patient is in his right mind and wants to go ahead and end it, they should have the free will to have their wish. I look forward to hearing your response and/or counter-argument. I am glad that I accepted this debate.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is about killing someone who is greatly suffering and has an incurable disese and there is no hope for recovery, so he can decide that he can die with dignity, no suffering anymore. The point is that who is he to have decision to take his life, he is not the responsible for taking or granting lives, he is only responsible for protecting his life. the most aspect we notice to what point did the life quality diminished, nearly it becomes like animals life. There is someone asked that they kill horses when they get sick when i asked him about this topic to support his claim of accepting Euthanasia, is there a comparison between human life and horses life? This is really surprising to find such these claims. The life of a man, no matter what he is suffering or did, is priceless, and there is no one who can decide whether the life is taken or left.
Euthanasia

To answer your first question, the last wish is both and neither in a way. It is to die in a peaceful manner. Now to your example. If that were to happen, I would completely be fine with that. If the patient wants to live, then they have that right. They should not be forced to be killed, as that would be murder, not euthanasia. In the last second in our lives, there may be people that don't want to live and suffer. There may be people that want to just go peacefully with as little pain and suffering as possible. You are correct that we are in the age of medical revolution, but that is the point. We are in the MIDDLE. We are not done yet, and there are still things that are yet to be discovered, so let's say that the person was suffering from something that there was no possible way to ease the pain. I'm sure that that has happened before. Free will is provided in any way that they want. They should have the free will to lose their life, ONLY if it is imminent very soon and are suffering. In my closing statements, I would like to point out a few things. Here is my list of things that I would like to point out: 1. The definition of Euthanasia is at this link: http://dictionary.reference.com... Painless death. That sums it up. So, if you don't support euthanasia, then you support painful death. Why the heck would anybody support that? 2. Please read this story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... These guys thought that they had absolutely nothing to live for when they found out that they were going blind. That could have meant possible years of suffering. That would be absolutely tragic. 3. Yet another story: http://articles.washingtonpost.com... Even the woman's husband was so glad that his wife was able to go out the way she did. THAT is dying with dignity. 4. Just look at my opponent's capitalization and grammar errors. How can you vote for that?
Euthanasia

Is the last wish wanting to die, or accurately to be killed? Even he is greatly suffering. i have an example that support what i try to say: someone is given a poison that stop all the functions of the body, he reached to an extent that he was getting some drugs that may refresh his energy and idrenalin because his heart beats had decreased to a sign that he must die, and went to a doctor that suggests to give him an injection that can make him die in peace because there is no hope that he can continue his life, and although he was suffering he refused that and left the doctor and continued to suffer and have more drugs to challenge himself, so what i am trying to say that for the last second in our life we want to live despite the suffer we have. you are not sure about what you have said "Our medicines and doctors aren't as good as you think they are. Some pains cannot be eased." There are a lot of alternatives that can ease the pains. our medicine has developed to a very wide extent. we are in the age of medical revolution. The free will is provided to anyone, but in an ethical way not in any way. There are no religion that support what you say, no religion can say that anyone has the right to kill someone to ease his suffering or anyone can decide to lose his life.
Euthanasia

1. The dignity is getting his last wish, not laying in a hospital bed suffering from terrible illnesses that will most likely end his life in a few days. If they are without a doubt going to die in a few days and there is no way to ease the pain, do you want them to suffer? Nobody should want that. Just let them go out peacefully without the pain and suffering. 2. There may not be any other solution to the suffering. That may be the only way to ease the pain. Our medicines and doctors aren't as good as you think they are. Some pains cannot be eased. 3. The free will should not have anything to do with the doctors or the ones performing it. I think that the family and/or the patient should have that say if they want to go ahead and end it. Some things cannot be eased. If that is their will, then they should have the free will to do that.
Vegetable Gardens (pro) VS Flower Gardens (con)

Honestly when I saw how long your argument was I couldn't myself to read it. Reasons why flower gardens are better! 1. Pretty flowers are better. source - my brain. Now lets get into the definition of an opinion since this is a debate based on opinion! Definition - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. source - http://dictionary.reference.com... I could go into a bunch of reasons why I think flower gardens are better than vegetable gardens but opinions are irrelevant. I could also list a bunch of facts about flowers which would be unnecessary. I will list one fact for fun just to show you vegetable gardens aren't the only garden you could eat from. 1) There are more than 42 flowers that you can eat. Source - http://www.treehugger.com... So basically you can eat from flower gardens. Also I would like to address some of your benefits of a vegetable garden. 1) "Grown produce is much more high quality than what you would get at Superstore, or Costco or any supermarket. And not only does this food taste better it is much more healthy!" I could say the same thing with flowers in a garden then instead of them in a flower shop. They look better and are more fresh. 2) "Would you rather have nice looking plants or food so you can live? The answer is obvious. I think that you and I prefer to be alive than dying." I don't have a vegetable garden and I'm not dying. 3) "Not only can you eat fresh produce but you can sell it!" I can sell flowers to make money. 4) "Gardening helps burn body fat, grow muscles and help give you a longer, healthier, happier life!" Can I actually see the statistics for that? Or is this just another assumption you made? As you can see this debate is going to go no where.
Vegetable Gardens (pro) VS Flower Gardens (con)

We are back! Hope everyone is having a great summer. Today we will be debating "Vegetable Gardens (pro) VS Flower Gardens (con)." We, the DDD (Jacobie1121 + DarthKirones) will be arguing for the Pro side. Round 1: Acceptance only Round 2: up to 3 arguments- no rebuttals Round 3: up to 3 arguments- no rebuttals round 4: rebuttals and conclusions. NO ADDITIONAL POINTS no swearing Thanks, DDD
We need to pass a constitutional amendment to strip corporate entities of their legal personhood

The U.S. Constitution was written with human beings in mind. At the time of its creation, in fact, corporations were widely reviled. But a century later they were a commonplace business institution, and a century after that they"ve become our invisible government. This was accomplished over decades, through incremental changes to the law grounded in the extremely harmful fiction that corporations are people rather than legal entities created for our convenience in doing business together. There are two conceptions of "corporate personhood". The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this. However, "corporate personhood" also commonly refers to the Supreme Court-created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of "corporate personhood" corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever mention corporations. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted so-called "rights" that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has: * prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow"s, 1978) * struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, 1996), thus creating "negative free speech rights" for corporations and preventing us from knowing what"s in our food. * prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee, 1933) * struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action through what, theoretically, is the purest form of democracy. (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti). *The notorious 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is just one in a long series of Supreme Court cases that entrenched "corporate personhood" in law. Justices since have struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations wield ever-increasing control over jobs, natural assets, politicians, even judges and the law. We believe corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges citizens and their elected representatives willfully grant them. Amending the constitution will reverse the Court"s invention of "corporate personhood" and limit corporations to their proper role: doing business.
We need to pass a constitutional amendment to strip corporate entities of their legal personhood

After last round, where I specifically said he should offer an original argument, my opponent has doubled down on his plagiarism: PLAGIARISM (again) My opponent has plagiarized his last round argument from the following book: The Purposeful Argument (page 390) Here's a link to it: . https://books.google.com... So, with my opponent plagiarizing every argument he presented, I have nothing to rebut. This is Debate. org, not Copy and Paste. org. I guess all I can do is offer my own negative case: Negative Case: Contrary to the resolution, we don't NEED to pass a constitutional amendment in order to strip corporate entities of their legal personhood. .. We have an alternative. We could also replace those judges that support corporate personhood with judges that would overturn the case establishing corporate personhood. Summary of debate: 1. My opponent plagiarized 2 out of 3 rounds. 2. I am the only one who offered an original argument.
We need to pass a constitutional amendment to strip corporate entities of their legal personhood

Yes, I am willing to debate you. As of now, however, I'm still waiting for the debate to begin. I'm supposed to be debating you, not the author of that article. As the instigator, and the person advocating a change in the status quo, you have the full burden of proof, so may I suggest you use the final round to making your case? I look forward to reading your original offering.
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

My opponent has failed to realize that it is just as likely, as not that he will find a girl friend. He stated the following things: "If you drive 120MPH down the freeway, you know that there is a probability of death. If you stand in the middle of a burning house fire, you should realize that it is quite probable that you will die. It is not certain that you will die as you have not died yet, but does your reason not tell you "If I do not leave I will most likely die". " These are certain things. Cause and effect. Fire = Burns. Duco being geeky doesn't have a direct correlation with his ability to date a girl. A number of factors come into play. Yes you have listed reasons why you feel you have lower chances than your peers. But please realize that the same reasons work towards the opposite! Lets look at a quote from a resident female on the site. theLwerd: "Duco, I have to say this. .. you are ADORABLE (lol I've seen your video debate). Now I'm not sure what the 98 comments before this have said, but since I'm probably one of the few females on this site, let me just say this -- you have to stop looking as your perceived nerdiness as a hinderance or downfall and instead use it to your advantage! !! Work it. (For those who say it can't be done, you're obviously just not good enough to do it right. .. ) That is all. " Please note that my opponent's Argument was based on opinion. He did not prove that his "nerdiness" effects his ability to date. I have used a very little bit of factual information, but every little bit counts!
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

It's an unfortunate reality that my opponent is grasping for straws at this point in the debate. I am making no claim that I can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Humans can indeed predict the future with varying degrees of accuracy, and they can also attribute some form of basic probability to outcomes. This is not because we can see in the future, but because we are rational. If you drive 120MPH down the freeway, you know that there is a probability of death. If you stand in the middle of a burning house fire, you should realize that it is quite probable that you will die. It is not certain that you will die as you have not died yet, but does your reason not tell you "If I do not leave I will most likely die". I have already demonstrated why I believe I have lower chances than that of my peers, so it is far more complex than a simple flip of the coin. If all human actions were like this (that one might have to guess on), life would be utter chaos. You are over simplifying the argument, and have clearly ran out of things to argue. I have provided the most sound argument, whereas my opponent is now denying the very possibility of human reason making logical decisions about probability.
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

My opponent is simply taking a shot in the dark. He feels that he can predict that it is unlikely for him to find a girlfriend, its like taking a coin and saying that it is unlikely it will land on "Heads". My friend, please remember, in that case, it is also unlikely it will land on "tails". As human beings we cant predict the future, Duco can in no way say he will not find a girlfriend.
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

You say simply be describing a girl I might be interested in means that I beleive I could get such girl. This argument is inherently fallacious. People can be interested in girls they have no chance of getting, even if they are being 'reasonable'. This would assume all people have the same exact standards, so that all of the girls I was interested in were likewise interested in me. If such were true, this debate would be a non issue. I find it highly unlikely that I will. If you try to add two plus two into a standard calculator, trying to make five forever, yet always getting 4, should you assume that if you do it enough you will get five? Realistically, you will never get five. Opposites do not attract- the term is stupid, and wrong. Not to mention out of context, considering the term refers to 'mental opposites', or 'opposites in personality', not opposites in attractive qualities. F/M, Beauty and the best is a made up fairy tale- The beast, while physically unattractive had an appalling personality to Beauty. My personality is appealing to no girls.
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

I will return the obvious, do not vote for me unless deserved. My opponent Answered the question: Could you please describe a girl you would be interested in? (Be reasonable) The fact that he answered the question by describing a girl, means that he feels he could get the girl of his description. (please note I said "Be reasonable") I find that it is highly likely that their is a girl that will find Duco irresistible one day. Ever heard of the story "Beauty and The Beast"? Perhaps nothing else matters and we are destined to find someone in the end. Or maybe scientist are correct in saying its all in genetics. Have you ever heard the saying, Opposites attract? It seems that in all circumstances Duco is destined for a "Girlfriend"! And if opposites really do attract, Duco is in for a Very good looking girl! No offense!
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

Hello Duco, I wish you good luck in this debate. I do have one question: Could you please describe a girl you would be interested in? (Be reasonable) 1) Their are 24,047 people in the city you live in. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 83.3 males. So their are some obviously lonely females hanging around your city. (Wikipedia) 2) Your obviously desperate (your debating a 14 year old boy about you being able to date), I can guarantee that their is a girl, who is your type, that is as desperate as you are right now. Jeeze, i feel like I'm talking to a girl who just broke up with her boyfriend and is saying she will never find love again. 3) How did you meet your girlfriend?
My chances of finding a girlfriend are likely less that than of my peers.

My argument is simple, the chances of my finding a girlfriend, or a 'partner' (EG, mutual interest with a girl) is less than that of my peers. I will allow at least one round for question / answer session if my opponent chooses to do so. I reserve the right to refuse to answer especially personal or embarrassing questions. For some BG info.... * I am 19 years old * I am a male * I am heterosexual * I have a strong desire for a girlfriend * I have had one girlfriend * We didn't touch each other in any way, our status was debatable * I am shy, and may have AvPD * I am short, 5'4 * I am geeky/nerdy * I do go to parties, but my interactions with girls are less than suitable. * I have never kissed a girl * I generally come on too strong, or too weak- but for the most part girls aren't interested in me in the first place * I prefer more thin (not overweight) white girls. Chances are far less likely of me dating a girl who is excessively overweight, or notably 'not white'. *So far as this debate goes, "Peer" shall be defined as average college student, of at least normal intelligence, who is not overweight, and who is straight. * I am not willing to do anything long distance- long distance relationships suck. *Girlfriend shall be defined as A girl whom has interest in me, when I have interest in her, to the point where we "go out". Mutual interest is a very important factor of this, so that no girl can be my girlfriend, even if we date, unless she is actually interested in me for natural reasons. If she were to be interested in me to extort me, or to gain something otherwise (EG: bribes, gold digger, etc), she would not be considered my girlfriend under this regard. My opponent may start with his Q/A and/or his debate as he wishes.