BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

What if the person does not want to "enjoy" their time on earth because they simply cannot? Some people's suffering is too great for them to enjoy anything and maybe ending their life is the only thing they want and there's nothing wrong with that. What if after all that love and help and treatment nothing actually helps them get through anything and they hit the end of the road. I believe that is why Euthanasia should be legal and allowed everywhere, because no matter how much of all the things you listed there are still some cases where people cannot find any hope in living and they should be able to choose when they die. Also, a family wouldn't learn anything from watching their loved one suffer. Wouldn't it be a terrible sight to see? Seeing your loved one die in front of you and wither away wouldn't teach any virtues or the value of suffering. What about the money it costs to keep these people alive in their last moments on earth that they may not even want to go through? All this money could be used on people with a chance of living through an illness and could help other people live instead of giving someone who's almost dead a chance to live longer when they do not want it. There's no need to keep dumping supplies into a human being who doesn't want to live anymore and has no desire to stay on this earth with the suffering they're going through, it's in a way wasteful opposed to just giving the person what they want and what they deserve to have the option of - Euthanasia.
Euthanasia

People who are terminally ill deserve more respect than assistance in killing themselves. They deserve help, love, and treatment to show them that their life does matter and that they aren't less of a human being because of the illness or suffering that they are going through. Ending your own life is not a brave thing to do. Ending your own life involves giving up on yourself and losing hope because of the words and actions of doctors and maybe even their own family by saying well maybe you should just give up. It isn't seeking the good of yourself but actually the opposite. Seeking the good of yourself would involve going through the suffering to get to the apparent goods that are involved in suffering. Suffering causes humility and detachment along with other good virtues that we could all use in our life time and that we should share with others as an example. Suffering brings about the best in people because once you have gone through suffering you know how to help others who are going through the same thing by giving them the kind of care and love that you wanted while you were in a state of suffering. People who have no chance of living should be given the opportunity to enjoy what time they have left on earth. With the help and support of their loved ones they will get through the pain and show their family the value of suffering.
Euthanasia

Hello, First I'd like to say that to say Euthanasia is cowardly is quite false in fact and that it should be allowed. How could you say that it is cowardly when people who are terminally ill go through unending amounts of pain every day and decide to end their life in order to relieve that suffering? Ending one's life isn't a cowardly thing to do, it is a very brave thing to do. To decide to end your life in order to seek the good of yourself would take a lot of bravery knowing you'd die. Second What about people who have no chance of living and are just waiting for their death? You believe that they should live with that sort of timer on their lives and live every day knowing that they could die going through intense pain? People have a right to die and to chose how they die. It would be inhumane to allow someone to go through suffering without an end till their death. Third What value could suffering ultimately have? Suffering is a terrible thing and there is no apparent goods that come out of suffering, suffering is only a curse on all of humanity and anything to reduce or take away that suffering is a good thing. Suffering only brings out the worst in people, and if there's any way to end that suffering then a person should have the option to use the method.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a cowardly and wrong action that degrades the human not lifts one up to the level of respect that everyone should receive. It is not an end of unbearable suffering it is only the taking of someones life by the hands of doctors and medical assistants whom we trust to protect and heal us when we are in need. They reject their Hippocratic oath when they assist in ending someones life. What they should be doing is helping the person through the suffering not just resulting to degrading options such as assisted suicide and Euthanasia. It is an emotional not a logical ending of ones life. In every way Euthanasia is an immoral and degrading "medical" treatment which needs to be outlawed and banned in society today. It teaches people that suffering has no value and that if we ever come into contact with suffering that we should just end our own lives because a life of suffering is not worth living. This again is not true. Suffering has value and can be used to learn many lessons and virtues in life. Through suffering we can learn compassion and become better people.
Employees may use marijuana on the job except if it could pose a threat to the public.

Before this debate begins, could you explain what you mean by "endangering anyone"? Also could you elaborate on why policemen, firemen, teachers, drivers, or medical workers can not use marijuana? When using the term anyone, does this include the person using marijuana? Additionally, the topic states, "Employees may use marijuana on the job except if it could pose a threat to the public." whereas in one's claim it states, "should be allowed to use marijuana because they are not endangering anyone." So is the argument that they should be allowed to use marijuana as long as they are not hurting anyone including themselves, coworkers, and the public, or strictly just the public? Also when stating "employees on the job" do you mean they can use marijuana on breaks or while working or both? People at work should not be allowed to use marijuana because in any case it is a threat (threat: a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger). As stated by the National Institute of Drug Abuse the short term effects of marijuana are altered senses, altered sense of time, changes in mood, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and problem-solving, and impaired memory. Any of these side effects could create a situation that endangers anyone, for example take a sandwich shop employee who is not a public official, teacher, driver, or medical worker. If this sandwich maker experiences impaired body movement and difficulty thinking, while slicing the bread they could cut their finger. If they damage their finger then they are a threat to themselves. Based upon the effects of marijuana, it does create a danger to anyone including oneself. Therefore, marijuana should not be used while at work regardless of the profession. This is the link to the National Institute of Drug Abuse https://www.drugabuse.gov... I look forward to debating this with you.
Employees may use marijuana on the job except if it could pose a threat to the public.

Employees should be allowed to use marijuana on the job as long as they are not public officials/servants (i.e. policemen, firemen), teachers, drivers (i.e. bus drivers, taxi drivers), or medical workers. People who do not work in these fields should be allowed to use marijuana because they are not endangering anyone when high. *This is for a school debate over whether marijuana should be legalized for all residents over the age of 18. We are on the affirmative side.
there should be a limit of one black family per country

Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, Especially in downtown and big metropolises, Are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, There have been many incidents where white people were attacked, Targeted, And assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, It is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, Or at least to minimize it as much as we can, Is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, What can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, Because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, Isn't that what Hitler would do? ) Instead, The best solution is to throw them in prison, And then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, If we put black families to prison, We will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too. ) No offense and not at all being racist, Their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, Reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, Throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, Because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, But it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, But we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, The best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, We are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you. im not related biologically to icebeartheawesome. Hes a polar bear, And im half human half kitten. We teach at the same high school. He teaches history and i teach english and art
The United States foreign Aid

First off, I would like to respond to your argument of "the U.S. does not benefit", specifically from Israel. Not only does the U.S. have it's main Middle eastern military base IN Israel, and furthermore, Israel is supporting us in our current war on terrorism. To say that we don't benefit them is a flat out lie. To address your point on China we simply look at your structure. "Our main trading partner is China, and we currently owe them a lot more money than we have. We do not support China, from a payment aspect" I would like to know how exactly we don't support them when we ARE PAYING THEM MONEY FOR OUR DEBTS. Any money given to china IS supporting them. To affirm this resolution we must look at foreign aid from a practical, and strategical standpoint. Practical- your argument is cost and taxpayer money, however my contention 1 directly abolishes this claim. Strategical- You have shown none, whereas I have stated that FA helps us in gaining allies.
The United States foreign Aid

I will agree with some of your statements; but you stated that it benefits other countries, ultimately benefiting America. I would disagree. Our main trading partner is China, and we currently owe them a lot more money than we have. We do not support China, from a payment aspect, we buy their goods. However, other countries such as Israel alone, which we annually give them, and surrounding countries $10,000,000,000; are barley significant to the United States. We do not buy, nor sell to them. We simply lend them money for their military, etc. There was a poll conducted, the topic was "Do you support foreign aid?" It was showed to Americans, and 73% of them do NOT support foreign aid. Now that number may mean nothing at all sense 90% of the Americans are un-educated about the matter, that is still a large percentile, regardless. You may be familiar with the War in Iraq, yes we are currently spending billions there fixing THEIR corrupted government. 1. http://bit.ly...
The United States foreign Aid

Good luck 1) The United States foreign aid does not have a detrimental effect on the United states, nor does it overstep it's boundaries in spending taxpayer money. less than 1% of U.S budget is spent on foreign aid, and on average 25 cents per YEAR for every american is spent on foreign aid. 2) The money spent on other countries benefits the U.S. The money used to help foreign countries is not just thrown away, like you are making it seem, it benefits the other countries, and the U.S. When this money is invested into other countries it helps to stabilize growing economies, which in turn helps to stimulate our own. The second way that it helps benefit the U.S. is through improving foreign relations and gaining future allies. Defence Secretary Robert Gates is quoted saying that "cutting aid jeopardizes US national security, and There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts"(comments) All Citations will be in the comments since there is no room.
The United States foreign Aid

I believe the United States should not aid any other countries right now in terms of health and money. The United States is in a financial crisis of it's own, and any money going to the other countries would be tax payers money meant for us. We are 14 trillion dollars in debt, helping other countries at the cost of our own would be foolish. We need to take care of ourselves first, then work on helping other people out. When you are on an airplane and the oxygen masks come down, you secure yours first, then your child's or anyone else's. That's how I feel about this subject. The child being one of our allies, we fix ourself first, then we fix other countries. I await a response, and I will enjoy this debate. Good luck.
Early Term Abortions

"A separate sentient being is defined as a living thing with different DNA than any other living thing." -Prinston Science Journal- A fetus at any point is proven to have separate DNA from either parent and is therefore scientifically proven to be it's own person with its own life. It is because I agree with resolutionsmasher that I can only negate the resolution. Applying this to all of the previous arguments, I conclude this debate. Thank you.
Early Term Abortions

My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that the mom is actively killing the cells. Well what happens when the mom has a problem where she cannot have children and she and the child would die. We should take in the consideration the fact that if both are going to die shouldn't we save the mother. Also when saying that we are going to kill these cells, as I have proved in my first contention that at this stage they are in fact just cells, it should be wrong because we cannot kill a real person. Well with this in mind then my opponent is also saying that scratching your skin should be against the law. Now I would also like to stress to the public that this is not a debate about abortion in general. But rather a debate about early term abortion. In saying this I urge a vote in strong affirmation.
Early Term Abortions

"to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of" This is the definition of "kill." When dealing with such a serious word, one must consider their actions carefully. While some argue against it, abortion is the act of depriving of life. My opponent offers in his second contention the "mindset" claiming that in an early-term abortion the life taken is not actually a baby. The definition of a "baby" is not concrete, and both sides are argued constantly. My opponent and I cannot agree on the definition of a "baby." Because of this, I will focus on the fact that abortion of any kind is the deprivation of life. Now to address his second contention. He makes a rather rash statement here. While still slightly plausible, abortion remains the deprivation of a life. Whether or not the woman chose to be pregnant, she would be ACTIVELY KILLING were she to have an abortion. Therefore, abortions ought not be permitted. This resolution deals with the permissibility of early-term abortions. Here is the definition of permit: "To legally condone or permit." (Also from dictionary.com) So, we know that abortion is the active killing, or depriving of life. Is killing allowed by law? Obviously not. Taking this into account, abortions of any type ought not be permitted since they are against the law, and active killing. For these reasons I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Early Term Abortions

Early Term Abortions should be permitted. Contention 1) Mindset When the cell is first fertilized it takes up to two months before the cells develops the ability to have feelings and brain wave patterns. Therefore when an Early Term Abortions (as defined as one month after conception) occurs it is not developed enough to be considered a baby yet. Contention 2) Choices Lets say for example a woman is walking down the street and all of a sudden a black van approaches. They grab the woman abduct her then rape her. When she becomes pregnant is not her fault and she might not be able to support for the child. Therefore when something like this happens as long as it is within the first month before the child has developed brain patterns and feelings, the woman should be able to choose whether or not she has to support her or not.
THBT smoking should be illegal

Hello, today we have 4 rounds1. Pro accepts, Con makes arguments2. Pro makes arguments only, Con makes rebuttals3. Pro makes rebuttals, and Con makes his Conclusion4. Pro makes Conclusion, and Con follows the words "No round as agreed upon"Today I will doing this debate with lannan13.Rules 1. No forfeiting2. No flaking3. No trolling4. If not follow rules 7-points to the other side Definitionssmoking: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbonillegal: not according to or authorized by lawban: to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of somethingSourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
THBT smoking should be illegal

Since this round is conclusions I'm not going to C&P my opening arguments and bore you to death more than you already are, but just thoroughly answer my opponent's questions and then move on to my conclusion. 1. The round about way of answering this question would be no! The reason being is how you asked it. Smoking once or a few times won't harm you. I have shown in my last round that you have to do so in an excessive amout. In that regards if you are looking for a yes answer you can find that it would be the same as saying that if you jump up and down 1 million times in a row you'll break your knee. It's something of that porposterous. This isn't even to mention the fact that I proved that much of the "smoking research" is bogus and ignores other factors. 2. That doesn't seem like a question, but more of a "jab. " I do not think that it was intended to be answered, but I'll answer it anyways. Still a great deal. If we just look to the prohibition we can see though Alchol was still illegal people still drank it. I'll leave a meme bellow to show how hillarious that question was and why it's wrong. In conclusion, we can see that we should not illegalize smoking and ban it. It is a great business venture and will do great things as I have shown that tobacco crop accounts for 73% of farmer's profit. The farmer grows 4 times that amount in other crops, but we can see that banning smoking would bankrupt a large protion of our farmers driving up food prices. We can see that much of the harms of smoking is over blown and should be discounted as workers from within the institution itself has shown that they fail to look at many key factors and should be discounted. We can finally see that I have addressed all of my opponent's points and have refuted them all. I have even brought up healthier choices that are still smoking and this was completely dropped by my opponent.
THBT smoking should be illegal

Thanks for Lannan13 to make his rebuttal. First I have a few questions, that Con could answer.1. Even though smoking makes the Parkison disease reduce, it still makes other cancers such as your lungs?2. Of course it is less pollution because now many people won't smoke?Now I will say my arguments 1 last time.Arguments 1. I will go on my first argument which is that it decreases populationSmoking affects human lives in many different ways. First is that it is unhealty which I will say in my next arguments and second it is baf air which makes pollution. First I will tell you about the unhealthy things about smoking. First, it destroys your lungs. Imagine this. What if you were trying to smell and breath in the pollution out of a car and also smoke out of a fire. That is the same as smoking. I will give you a picture of your lungs. There will be those white things on you lungs with is basically bad things that might kill you. Many people die because of this.I will say my second reason for the population is that it destroys the enviornments. Because we will breath the bad air if we breath bad air then are lungs will be like the picture above. Also don't blame about cars. Smoking makes almost the same amount of pollution. Also do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is bad for the lungs and will make cancer.2. Very easy to dieNow I will explain more about it. First It is bad for your lungs. In the pictures above, do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is the bad thing that goes in your body and make you not breath with the white things in your lungs. Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers: Lung Larynx (voice box) Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips) Nose and sinuses Pharynx (throat) Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach) Stomach Pancreas Cervix Kidney Bladder Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer) Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum) Acute myeloid leukemia That is a lot from smoking. Also you die fast if you smoke.3. Expensive CostWell, this isn't a matter a lot but the cost just gets higher and higher. Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.Also many people think you need smoking for stress. However there are ways to reduce stress. Why I should win this debateI made strong points, and rebutted each of Con's points. Also Con didn't make a exact "rebuttal" but just argued my rebuts, like clashes.Therefore I hope everyone votes for...Pro!!!