BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

Your first paragraphs are an attempt to get away with a poor and dare I say it underhanded opening argument. Your implying that my arguments are invalid because they rely on definitions that were never provided. What exactly was any opponent on this debate supposed to do? I return to your contributions to the comments section. A potential opponent pointed out the issues that would surround this debate because of a lack of definition. You said you would use "the power of the dictionary". I believe this indicated that you would be as specific as possible with the definition of Euthanasia, the very fact that you won't accept the dictionary definition is proof of a lost argument. The fact that you would have used a different definition depending on what argument was put to you suggests to me that you had every intention of using your lack of definition to trap an opponent into a debate on something they never intended to be involved in. This is underhanded and not in the spirit of healthy debate on a very important and emotive subject. The rest of your post is pedantic and still after three rounds you have not offered a single argument in favour of any contention that taking someone's life or participating in taking a life painlessly were the intention is to either put them out of their misery or to help society as a whole is morally correct. That is Euthanasia. Your initial intention of dismissing non voluntary Euthanasia proves the argument against any type of Euthanasia. Your are clearly against non voluntary Euthanasia as any reasonable human being should be. My argument starting from round one is that it is impossible to use the fact that someone wants to end their life as an argument that is then ok to take that life. No-one can possibly have a balanced rational non emotional opinion on whether they should remain alive or not. Taking this on board there is no such thing as voluntary Euthanasia and there is no moral difference between a doctor in Switzerland and a Nazi in charge of a mental health facility in the 40's. The fact that someone tells you they want to die may make a humanitarian difference between the two but they are still committing the same act. In fact the Nazi would believe that what they are doing is a good thing for society. The Swiss doctor is banking a check. Not stopping a suicide or failing to intervene in saving a life were the person wants to die is a very different debate. In these cases you don't kill the person. Someone's right to die is totally different from someone's right to kill. In closing you cannot use the fact that someone wants to end their life as a reason to allow you to participate in their death. They cannot make a rational non emotional judgement on their own life. No civilized country legally allows victims to judge accused criminals for a very good reason. We should apply that same reasoning to Euthanasia.
Euthanasia

+Introduction+ My opponent thinks that he's an omnipotent debater, but he is not. I admit that it would have been better for everyone if I were to provide the definitions, but notice that my opponent has not, also, provided any definitions. Because, I have absolutely no time right now, I'll debate the proper way. That is to say, I'll simply confute his two arguments. +Voluntary Euthanasia+ I emphasized free will while my opponent responded with " It has nothing to do with the right of a person to die that is a completely different argument." because of definitions which neither of us provided. Yes, his argument is from definition, something that he didn't provide. What about definitions? Well, the first round is supposed to establish everything so the best thing to do is to see how we used the word "Euthanasia". "Many that are in favour of Voluntary Euthanasia make the case that an individual should have the right to end their own life" Apparently, his argument from definition is invalid for the definition has to do with the person, too. +Involuntary Euthanasia+ The definition my opponent provided was " deciding someone's life is not worth living for them". Then he says "Someone could make a strong case that me spending hours on the internet reading nonsense and posting on social media is a life not worth living." but isn't that corruption? The problem lays in one taking others life because they feel like being God; this is not an example of a "life not worth living". A good example would be the life of Adolf Hitler. +Extra+ "Since you pointed out a spelling mistake and gave orders to the voters around what they should do with the conduct points it seems to me that you are already playing dirty." I just pointed out my opponents mistakes (something that you too ought to do). Just wait for the RFDs, the readers are even more naughty especially the ones that read debates. "If not you are at best treating the readers of this debate with a certain amount of contempt by implying they are incapable of doing a job without your help." And, you're treating the readers with even more contempt since you're implying that they're incapable of realizing when they're being mocked without your help! You see, I too, can have skewed logic. "This is not Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. This is Suicide period." Nope, my scenario is an example of both. "Helping a person to end his or her life by request in order to end suffering. (Rarely prosecuted and only lawful in Switzerland where the reasons must be altruistic.)" http://www.assistedsuicide.org...
Euthanasia

Since you pointed out a spelling mistake and gave orders to the voters around what they should do with the conduct points it seems to me that you are already playing dirty. If not you are at best treating the readers of this debate with a certain amount of contempt by implying they are incapable of doing a job without your help. I have to confess to being new to this site so if there was anything to indicate that you wanted to debate "Assisted Suicide" and not Euthanasia can you point out to me how I could've determined this? Your topic indicated that you were Pro Euthanasia, in fact in the comments section of this debate another site member suggested that were they to take up this argument they would imply an outlandish definition of Euthanasia as you did not define it. Your response to this was to indicate that were he to do that you would "use the power of the dictionary". I feel that indicated that you were arguing the case for the exact definition of Euthanasia. According to Webster's this is simply "The act of killing someone painlessly". By definition Dr Harold Shipment's campaign of mass murder was Euthanasia. I will leave it up to the voters to decide what they think of your attempt to re define what you were arguing in favour for midway through the debate. Even your re definition of assisted suicide is a further dilution of the argument. "if you want to torture someone by not allowing that person to end their life by their own choice which they hold every day then please feel free to vote CON, but if you despite your beliefs believe that dreams can come true, vote PRO". This is not Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. This is Suicide period. Assisted suicide or Euthanasia has nothing to do with free will. The act specifically refers to the actions of a person who actively participates in ending the life of someone else. It has nothing to do with the right of a person to die that is a completely different argument. Your final paragraph is disjointed. What exactly is it you are arguing for? In it's few lines you switch from the right to end your own life to the decision of another to participate in ending a life, then back to the right to suicide by talking about not having the right to stop them. The point to consider in the debate on Euthanasia is clear. It has nothing to do with an individual who wants to end their life. The question is: Does anyone have the right to participate in the premeditated clinical ending of another person's life. If you want to discard the idea of non voluntary Euthanasia then I will proceed to round three and let the voters decide how they view this. If you want to change this argument to be about the right to commit suicide without interference or the right to do what you want with your own body then please start another debate. That jump in subject is too far. Euthanasia refers to the other party involved in a death, not the person who is going to die.
Euthanasia

I won't deal with "Non-voluntary Euthenasia" which incidentally is spelled incorrectly. Why? Because, I obviously didn't want to debate this and so if my opponent choses to debate he will lose the conduct point for ruining this debate. Consequently, this will also make me play dirty and I don't want to do that, though I'm good at it; Chrysippus was surely wrong when he thought that he can beat me at a game I asked God to invent. Voters, if you want to torture someone by not allowing that person to end their life by their own choice which they hold every day then please feel free to vote CON, but if you despite your beliefs believe that dreams can come true, vote PRO. Now, there are people who, indeed, want assisted suicide due to "irrational, illogical and not even worth debating" thoughts, but when did I say that assisted suicide ought to be done at the snap of the fingers? I believe in free will and that all own their body, not other people or the government, but you own your body. If so, it is correct to try to reason and help the person who wants assisted suicide, but at the end of the day, you don't have the right to stop them especially if they're obviously not ruled by emotions at this point.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is morally wrong and should remain illegal in any civilized society. The case against Voluntary euthanasia - Many that are in favour of Voluntary Euthanasia make the case that an individual should have the right to end their own life, however this is the equivalent of giving the victim of a crime the right to decide the criminal's fate. We can't trust the victim of a crime to objectively look at their own case and come to a fair and balanced opinion on an accused's guilt or what a convict's sentence should be. Likewise when it is your own life at stake how can you be considered a fair and balanced judge on wether you should continue living or not? If someone who is suicidal has thoughts such as "I have nothing to live for", "No-one loves me", "I can't see any light at the end of a tunnel" how many others when looking at that persons life objectively would be likely to come to the same conclusions? In fact the opposite is the case, most of the time when suicidal people open up about thoughts like that to others they are not taken seriously. The objective observer would consider the thoughts that person is having as irrational, illogical and not even worth debating. Even if they do engage in debate the irrationality of the suicidal person is imposible to argue with. Just as impossible as it would be to argue with a mother who wants to see the killer of her child executed. Non-voluntary Euthenasia or in other words deciding someone's life is not worth living for them. Someone could make a strong case that me spending hours on the internet reading nonsense and posting on social media is a life not worth living. What if they did the same to you. I think Martin Niemï¿½ller said it best First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
This house believes badly Behaved children be sent to boot camps

Yes i see your point but what happens if the children keep on misbehaving,they yet detentions yes but what if they're not bothered i believe they should be sent off for short period of time until the learn the importance of good behaviour. Take this story for example: Sarah El Madawi was becoming increasingly concerned about her 16 year old daughter's rebellious behaviour. Fearing for Susie's welfare, Sarah made a difficult and life changing decision. At the cost of "40,000, Sarah enrolled Susie in Casa by the Sea, a behavioural correction centre in Mexico. Every minute of the day at Casa by the Sea is planned. Strict study is coupled with physical activity and chores. Good behaviour is rewarded with privileges such as gardening. Susie was brought to Casa under the pretence of a holiday abroad with her mum. Other pupils arrived in a less dignified manner. Sarah made a difficult decision, but has no regrets The school offers an 'escort service'. Security guards accompany the child to the school. Robbie, a pupil of Casa, was handcuffed and taken in a van to the airport. "It was probably the most heart wrenching, terrible decision, I had to make in my entire life," says Robbie's mum. But Robbie has no regrets. "It kind of felt like they abandoned me at the time," explains Robbie. "But I'm happy they did it though."
Abortion

I believe abortion is murder in all cases including rape, Incest, And the in the life of the mother. I believe life begins at conception. The baby's life at week one is worth the same as the life at month 9. Millions of babies are killed pre-birth due to the decision of Roe vs. Wade and abortion facilities all across the United States such as Planned Parenthood. I believe Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and Planned Parenthood should be defunded by the US government. The abortion procedure is despicable and inhumane. I stand against the crushing of skulls, The removal of limbs, And the selling of the aborted babys' organs. On a religious point of view, I believe God wanted mothers to die for their babies, Not their babies die for them.
This statement is not true

Con: "Without 3 sides there can be no triangle" I agree. If my statement is not true, I take the debate. I am affirming that my statement in round 1 is not true. If my statement is true, the debate goes to you. You are affirming that this statement is not not true meaning that it is true. There were 31 "nots" following my statement in round 1. Each "not" cancels out each succeeding "not" because they negate each other. Since there are 31, and 31 is an odd number, the statement will read "triangles do not have 3 sides". But triangles have 3 sides. So this statement "triangles do not have 3 sides" is not true. I am affirming that by being pro for "this statement is not true". Over to con
Divisions are the cause of (if not all) most conflicts.

Yes as I said before, it's not always division that causes these things. It's arrogance and selfishness. The Brits, Danes and Swedes brutally and viciously conquered the countries they conquered without shame or remorse. They did what they could to enrich the mother country. It wasn't in the name of religion. There are things about Lutheranism and Presbyterianism that I dislike, but to blame it solely on them is plain wrong.A united world will still have problems. It's actually better if the world had its nations. Independence is a key to happiness.
Divisions are the cause of (if not all) most conflicts.

My opponent argues that racism, the desire to enrich ones country, and extreme nationalism is the cause of conflicts. I will disprove these one by one.First of all, racism. If all people were in one nation, there will only be one race. Now second, is the desire to enrich ones country. If there is only one country, wars will not cause conflict because everyone will work together to achieve this goal. Last but not least, extreme nationalism. If there is only one country everyone will be united in making their country more prosperous.One country would not solve the problems of the world. There would be rebellions, rape, crime and violence. And plenty of unhappy people. A united world will still not solve anything.About the paragraph containing something about rape, if all is united under one, the people who raped the natives would have respected them enough not to do it.There would have. Remember the atrocities UN troops did to Iraqi civilianshttp://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent is also arguing that religion does not cause wars. Clearly when he was typing his argument he did not put the Crusades in mind. The catholics were like OMG, and the muslims were like oma. Hahaha.The Crusades were complicated. It wasn't a clear case of let's conquer another country. To be fair, the Spanish were indeed invaded by the Arab invaders, who were quite brutal, so in this case they were just trying to reclaim their land. Self-defense. It's not like what Britain and Denmark did, which was pure, brutal, ruthless conquest.
Divisions are the cause of (if not all) most conflicts.

My opponent argues that racism, the desire to enrich ones country, and extreme nationalism is the cause of conflicts. I will disprove these one by one. First of all, racism. If all people were in one nation, there will only be one race. Now second, is the desire to enrich ones country. If there is only one country, wars will not cause conflict because everyone will work together to achieve this goal. Last but not least, extreme nationalism. If there is only one country everyone will be united in making their country more prosperous. About the paragraph containing something about rape, if all is united under one, the people who raped the natives would have respected them enough not to do it. My opponent is also arguing that religion does not cause wars. Clearly when he was typing his argument he did not put the Crusades in mind. The catholics were like OMG, and the muslims were like oma. Hahaha.
Divisions are the cause of (if not all) most conflicts.

No they're not. Assuming by division, you mean countries and races, ethnic groups and even religion in some cases, no. Racism, desire to enrich one's country, and even extreme nationalism (Britain and Denmark during the golden age of the European powers) cause these things, especially conquest.Now as far as war is concerned, sometimes rape is the cause two. For instance, when British, particularly Scottish and Georgian supporting English troops, were stationed in the Americas on the eve of the French-Indian War, it can be said that some raped indigenous women, causing natives to retaliate. It is those things that cause conflicts.Religion doesn't really count, at least in the case of race. In terms of hatred of tomboys and autistic people, yes. But race is a different matter. It can correlate depending on the religion though. Orthodox Lutherans and orthodox Jews absolutely hate blacks with a passion.But those things don't cause division. Racism causes conflicts. A need to conquer.
Obama being impeahced

The Gas prices falling is not do to Obama. It doesn't work like that. There are many economic forces that go into what the gas prices are. Just saying Obama did it's a very simplistic approach to a complicated issue. Also if you think Obama is responsible for the prices falling do you also think he is responsible for the massive price hikes a couple years ago? Now he did kill Bin Laden, but that's minor in the entire fight on terrorism and once you remove the factor of revenge for 9/11 basically means nothing. Unemployment being at 8% is good and I can say that Obama deserves some credit for that I think the bad things he has done as I mentioned in the argument above far outweighs the positives of his presidency.
Obama being impeahced

Yes, I do agree that there are some things he could have done better but when people just say " I think Obama should be impeached" they don't take into consideration that he has done great things for this country. For example, I'm pretty sure you've seen it on the news, gas prices have been reduced significantly. Who did that? Obama did. Also, he killed Osama bin Laden. The man who killed thousands of people during 911. Also he brought the unemployment rate to 8%. And he ended not one, but TWO wars. Yes he has made mistakes but he did a lot of good stuff!
Obama being impeahced

I think that President Obama deserves to be impeached. To provide a example. In 2007 when he was running for office Obama said that "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom". "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. However. Under President Obama the wire tapping program has expanded. The program has been estimated to have spied on 5.5 million Us citizens. He Has a track record of lying to American citizens about the NSA, about foreign policy, and about the healthcare bill. According to several white house insiders, well Obama was telling everyone if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, they where estimating that 5% of America would lose there healthcare plan. America's population in about 317 million. Five percent of 317 million is about 15 million. Correct my math I might be wrong. Either way that's millions of people that lost there healthcare plan due to Obama lying. So I believe Because of these things I believe Obama should be impeached.
You do not exist

"My argument is this: You do not exist. I, however do."You did not provide scientific evidence that you do indeed exist outside of your own mind. My argument is that we both exist in the mind and in the world. You already proved we exist in our minds.We exist and the proof is how the mind and senses perceive us and our surroundings. Yes, our senses misfire, however, the information our senses pick up still fall under the accepted meaning of existence. If I hallucinate about a floating apple, that apple still exists both in my mind and outside my mind. This is all according to my mind. Although the way we view things outside the mind is subjective, this does not undermine the idea of existence. You cannot disprove my existence in that your senses pick up on my existence subjectively. To exists means to be real. This was taken from Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com...What we determine to be real or existing outside of our mind is subjective. Again, this does not disprove subjective existence.
You do not exist

I misused a word. Nothing exists out of my mind the chances are. In fact, the chances are far greater that I am a Boltzmann brain in the cosmos, just floating around because there was only one original me, but there are infinite Boltzmann brain me's. Senses are only electrical signals that can easily be misfires. It can easily be faked. If I am a Boltzmann brain, you don't exist out of my mind.
You do not exist

I would like to note that you said "you do not exist." You never stated that "you do not exist outside of my mind" until the second round. That changes the ball game. You're getting into the metaphysical aspects. I think fair warning should have been given here. "My argument is this: You do not exist. I, however do."Still, the same reasoning you use to question my existence can be used to question your own existence. How do you know you exist outside of your own mind? To exist also means something the mind perceives. What we believe to exist is based off of what our mind tells us. In a dream, the things we see exist. They exist not only in our mind, but they exist in the dream world in the sense that our senses pick up on these entities.
You do not exist

My argument is this: You do not exist. I, however do. With pure scientific evidence I can not truthfully say you exist because I can not prove anything outside my own head. How do I know you are not an artifically created android with a learning capacity better than Cleverbot? How about that I'm not an actor in a movie brainwashed to have false memories? I don't, but I don't know if you do. Therefore, you do not exist outside of my mind.