BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia should be legalised

Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.
Euthanasia should be legalised

Thank you for your argument. My arguments are going to come in the form of rebuttals to each of your major points."Euthanasia, firstly violates the principle that life lasts from conception to natural life as proposed by the theologies of several major world religions."In case you haven't noticed, our government is secular. Its laws are not based on religious values. According to our Constitution, each of us has the basic human right to life. It logically follows, then, that we also have the right to end our lives prematurely if we wish. You can't force someone to keep living if they don't want to. "...several surveys have been conducted saying that most doctors in the US oppose euthanasia so how can you force them to provide the service when they see it as murder."Legalizing euthanasia isn't going to FORCE them to provide such services. It is just going to ALLOW them to provide them.An added benefit of euthanasia is that is a suicide person goes to the doctor's office for assisted suicide rather than committing suicide privately, then the doctor could possibly try to help them through suicide prevention therapy. In other words, the legalization of euthanasia could possibly (and ironically) make suicide rates drop.
Euthanasia should be legalised

For the purposes of the debate con defines euthanasia using the same definition as the American Medical Association which is "the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering." Con acknowledges that the proponents of euthanasia are only trying to help ease people's suffering. However, euthanasia is NOT acceptable as there are both better alternatives and moral objections to it. Euthanasia, firstly violates the principle that life lasts from conception to natural life as proposed by the theologies of several major world religions. Secondly, the AMA , the body that represents American medical professionals has come out staunchly against euthanasia in several reports (here: http://www.ama-assn.org..., and here: https://ssl3.ama-assn.org... and others) furthermore several surveys have been conducted saying that most doctors in the US oppose euthanasia so how can you force them to provide the service when they see it as murder.
Euthanasia should be legalised

Pro claims that the Supreme Court has been wrong before. This is simply not true at all. The Supreme Court interpreted the laws correctly per the time period given. While we did amend the constitution to ban slavery, but you are able to reference one circumstance, out of thousands of cases determined unconstitutional, in which we amended the law. Your presumption, and that's what it is, that the right to death goes along with the right to life, encourages, and makes acceptable all forms of suicide, not just euthanasia. On the Hippocratic oath, the version you are quoting is one of many versions of the Hippocratic Oath that has been redone. I was working off the classical version (1) What I'm saying is that where do you draw the line for consent. If a mentally ill patient enjoys life, but his family is embarrassed of him, they can LEGALLY have him killed if euthanasia was legalised. Even if a newborn has a defect there's a chance, albeit possibly small, that that child can live a fruitful life... Again, they're not having any say in their own life. The Constitution applies to all citizens including the aforementioned examples. This forfeits their right to life which even you agree that you have. We've already established that medical professionals do not support euthanasia so Government funding is the only way to encourage it In conclusion, there are many aspects of euthanasia that violate many aspects of society. Since Pro aims to change the current state of the law Con would like to emphasize that the burden of proof lies not with disproving euthanasia, but proving the benefits, or pros argument, However, insofar, pro has not offered an advantage other than it ends suffering. However, as hospice and many other many medical techniques can perform just as well this is also invalid. Therefore, as Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof to modify the current laws, Con believes that it has the stronger argument. (1) http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Teenagers Can Be In Love

You have made excellent points and since this is our last round I will finish with a simple closing statement. Teenagers can be in love. Is it fair that adults disqualify our feelings simply because we are young? Of course teenagers will break up and they might not last but that doesn't make their love any less than that of an adult. I'm not saying that all teenagers are in love or that adults don't know what love is, but what I'm trying to say is that teenagers have the right to say they are in love and not be laughed at. Teenagers have the same feelings as adult and we can feel love just the same. Thank you for debating, you have been an excellent opponent.
Teenagers Can Be In Love

You make very good points and no I don't take this personally. I have to agree with you that as a whole teenagers do have crushes. But my goal of this debate is not to talk about the average teenager. I also agree with you that teenagers seek out their own benefit and happiness but I must point out that teenagers range from 13-19 and as you and I are still considered teenagers you must also agree with me that teenagers can over come this selfishness. If they truly are in love then they can be self-sacrificing for the person they love. The majority of the people I know who are now married are still with their high school sweetheart, and in one case, middle school. You also mentioned sexual frustration. This is a barrier that every couple has to over come simply because evolution has made us this way. We are physically at our prime in our late teens to early twenties and so this topic is almost unavoidable when you choose to be close to someone. But I don't think sexual relations should be an indication of wether or not what someone feels is love. In the event that sex does occur it is my personal opinion that you should stay with that person. I also think that if you made the choice to sleep with someone then you should be 100% committed to that person. But we must also remember that teenagers are just that, teenagers. They are young, inexperienced , and they haven't had time to learn about relationships. Where can teenagers look to for a good example of a relationship? But my point is not that teenagers have the perfect relationship or even a good relationship. My point is that even though they are young and they are inexperienced they can still be just as in love with someone as any adult.
Teenagers Can Be In Love

About the first section where you define love: You are absolutely right, and i agree to such terms! You have then described your personal story. As I guess right now, you feel attacked and would rather make this a personal affair? Or would you rather keep this general and applying to all teenagers? From your personal story, it seems like during the break ups you had a flirt with at least one other boy. (that involved kissing). True love can overcome everything, even such events, but since you were a teenager you simply didn't understand the values of not cheating and being loyal yet. To me, it seems teenagers rather seek out their own benefit (be it very romantic and commiting) but not yet "serving" one another. Children under the age of 16 would never die for their lovers. This is an extreme example, but it's probably why you and your boyfriend broke up in the past: in the end, you were still chasing your own happiness. Regarding to your comparison I must add that most adults still stay selfish, especially since the sexual revolution. But most adults are very reasonable and they simply know that divorcing or cheating is morally wrong if it's one-sided. In the case both parties aren't in love anymore, well, then both parties simply didn't have very special feelings for one another. The adults who are judging you, are simply jealous because they haven't had such relationships back in their day. They were foolish enough to chase whomever they pleased at that time, not thinking of future. This kindof proves that you and your boyfriend really are exceptions, but that generally, teenagers will not stay with their high school loves and will regret it later as an adult. By the end of her life, an average good-looking woman has slept with over 20 boys in her life. That seems a ridiculously large amount, right? They too, feel bad about that number. Especially when they think they have found the right man, and he gets mad about it or becomes sexually frustrated (Julian Barnes has come up with this theory) What makes me favour "medieval love"? Well, for a starters, people would ideally be equal and be given an equal amount of love/chances. In our society, less attractive persons often see how their attractive friends have all the "fun" with the other gender already at the age of 12, while they are forced to wait untill in their 20's. Ofcourse, I don't have to tell you that medieval love doesn't include cheating, children at a young age and an excessive amount of attention for the sexual side of the relationship. These are my 3 main arguments why teenagers should call their "love" crushes instead. Children simply should not kiss IMO, let alone have sex or make an achievment of these kinds of things. What I WOULD approve, is relationships like they are often shown in Manga series: these show how people still have a fright of being near the other gender, and for that reason there is almost no jealousy, intimacy and most of all: it promotes the curiosity towards one other special person.
Teenagers Can Be In Love

You asked me to define love. I agree with you that we should agree on the terms of what qualifies between a "crush" and "love" but to give you a definition, I'm afraid, is impossible. It is my strong belief that not only are there different types of love but that no one person loves the same. So what is love for you may not be love for me. As for the "crush" vs "love" I think I can better out line that. For me the difference between a crush and love is a decision. If you have a crush, please let me know if you agree, it is an immediate attraction due to a first, brief, encounter, where as love is knowing a person for who they are and choosing to commit yourself to them regardless of flaws. But this cannot be one sided. In order for your medieval love to work, in which I too believe, both people must have equal commitment which is why teenagers have a hard time staying together and thus the misconception that we cannot be in love. As for your second request as to why I believe we can be in love I must admit a bias. I have been with my current boyfriend for 6 years and seeing as I am almost 18 I don't need to tell you that he has been a big part of shaping me and my life. He was my first kiss and though he hasn't been my only kiss I can say with the utmost confidence that I believe he and I will last. Many people go through the "honeymoon" phase in which everything is nice and seems perfect but after the initial attraction wears off they break up. My boyfriend and I have broken up several times but because of our initial commitment we have come back together every time and are stronger for it. We see each other for who we are and it is this transparency between us that allows us to work. People tell us that we wont last because teenagers cannot be in love but what right do adults or other teenagers have to disqualify our love when they divorce or break up themselves? Are they then disqualified or wiser for it? Or is it all in circumstance? What makes you so adamant about "medieval love"?
Teenagers Can Be In Love

Hi there! I'm glad such topic is brought up. I've been in love several times too, as a teenager; it's just that i was well-aware that it wasn't gonna last forever. Currently, I am 18 and I regret everything i have done last year with my ex. We believed we were in love, but she was only 15 and her "love" appeared not to be all that real. That ofcourse should not be generalised, but i think it is an exception if teenagers truly stay in love and eventually marry. First, we should define what love is (i leave that up to you!) Then, you should tell me why you believe teenagers can truly be in love! And lastly, you should clearly show the difference between a "crush" and a "love". Personally, I have always believed in textbook medieval love where a boy and a girl live together forever. That teenagers date and kiss and even have sex under the age of 16, simply seemed ridiculous. Ofcourse, that might also be because i was one of the less attractive boys who wasn't getting any! ;)
Parents who wilfully permit their child to become seriously overweight are guilty of child neglect

* Crack-whores; * Alcoholics; * Former terrorists; * Race-hate preachers / Zionists rabbis; * Arms dealers; * Bitch-slapping pimps; * Head-hunting savages from Papua New Guinea; * Urine-soaked tramps; * Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses; * Michael Jackson fanatics; * Human-sacrificing witchdoctors from Ghana; * Neo-Nazis / UKIP members / Tea Party supporters; * Paedophiles / Catholic priests / Coronation Street actors; * Female genital-mutilating doctors from Somalia; * Suspected people-traffickers; * Inbred, clod-hopping pig farmers from Norfolk, England / retards. You wouldn't ask any of the above to babysit your kids, would you? But there's no law against them having kids of their own, is there? No, there isn't. However, paediatric social workers are likely to keep a very close eye on these type of people above if they become parents. And quite right too: the well-being of children is of paramount importance. But what about those obese layabouts who damage their children's health by feeding them junk food and not encouraging them to do enough exercise? "I am increasingly concerned that society may be normalising being overweight" said England's chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies recently, adding that parents of overweight children were failing to spot the danger signs. A third of children are overweight or obese - double the amount in the early 1990's - but research shows that over three quarters of parents do not recognise weight problems. Professor Kevin Fenton, of Public Health England, said "We share her concerns. Overweight and obesity costs the NHS over "five billion pounds (Sterling) each year and is entirely preventable." [1] In England and Wales, "Where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the local authority is required under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries, to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. A Section 47 enquiry must always be commenced immediately when...there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, for example a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm in the form of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect." [2] In my opinion, parents who wilfully permit their child to become overweight are guilty of child neglect and the appropriate authorities should take legal action against them accordingly. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.safeguardingchildren.co.uk...
science is a religion

Thank you, vi_spex.My opponent now claims that "[my] definitions are in contradiction with [his]". Firstly, I referenced my definitions. The definitions I used to make my arguments are widely accepted.Secondly, I showed, in the second round why your definitions are contradictory and/or inaccurate.My opponent then continues attempting to prove his definitions by questioning what counts as fact, knowledge and real. If this is relevant to the debate, if this is relevant to definitions of "science" or "religion", then my opponent needed to draw that conclusion, which he has not done. Instead, he has fabricated some definitions of his own and accuses me of contradicting him when my referenced definitions do not allign with his.Extend my arguments.
science is a religion

Thank you, vi_spexNegation CasePro argues that "the answer to [Con's] definitions are in the questions [Pro] asked". I never asked any questions about my definitions. I showed how your definitions were erroneous, and my original premises (the definitions) did not seem to be addressed. So, what you follow with from this, "religion is false, belief is theism, theism is religion if any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true", answers a question that was never asked, and hence is a strawman (logical fallacy) [1].Extend the rest of my arguments.References[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
science is a religion

Thank you, vi_spex. Negation Case My opponent seems to have ignored the structure of my response (which was to help both of us), so I’ll try my best to respond to his arguments. P1: What science is Pro seems only to type about what science is in his final line: “imaginaton is false, and taking the posiiton that science is true, when i dont know is true, is a lie, as something is either true or not” As I demonstrated in the previous round, science does not itself register as “true”, rather it is a methodology that aims to see whether something is true. P2: What religion is Pro seems to type about religion with this quote: “religion is false, and know is true, religion cant exist without belief. belief is doubt, the driving force behind religion” I am not sure how “religion can[no]t exist without belief” makes science a religion, or is even relevant to this debate. I would like further clarification, if that is okay. Furthermore, it is contradictory to say that “belief is doubt”. To show this, take the following definitions. Belief: “something believed; an opinion or conviction” [1]. Doubt: “to distrust” [2]. Conviction =/= distrust. The next mentioning of religion is here: “belief is false, as only know is true, and beyond what i know, is what i dont know you any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true” So religion is true because you know it is, and knowing something makes it true? This argument seems to be circular (which is a logical fallacy), in that the conclusion (we know religion is true) is embedded within the premise (any religion known to be true is true) [3]. A1: The ability to change Forgive me if I am wrong, but I cannot see any trace of this argument being contested. A2: Is versus ought Again, please correct me if I am wrong, Pro, but I cannot see this argument as contested either. Counter-Arguments My opponent’s argument this round seem to be concerned only with the definitions of science and religion, and anything not covering those things seems irrelevant to this debate. Again, Pro, please correct me if I am wrong. I do not mean to be rude. For example, “the universe is an imaginary concept” does not seem relevant to this debate. References [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
science is a religion

fact=knowledge=personal physical experience of now i just looked at my dog, is that a fact, is that knowledge? i can at best believe what others tell me, as i cant know imagination the universe is an imaginary concept, not real. how do you know a universe is not just an imagianry, when you have to imagine its real? any lie is a lie lies are non sense religion is false, and know is true, religion cant exist without belief. belief is doubt, the driving force behind religion belief is false, as only know is true, and beyond what i know, is what i dont know you any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true imaginaton is false, and taking the posiiton that science is true, when i dont know is true, is a lie, as something is either true or not
Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America

Laws of Debate: Round 1 will be stating your 3 main arguments, and why you support your position in the debate. Round 2-4 will be backing up your argument with evidence and countering your opponent's arguments. Gun Control defines regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for my three points regarding gun control Firstly, research has proven that more guns in a country are the main cause of more deaths therefor proving that laws targeting firearm restriction would lead to many fewer deaths. Secondly, the NRA (National Rifles Association) and the Republican Government know what they're doing is not right, so they need to keep money involved to make everyone happy. Lastly, Guns are used for protection, but we wouldn't need them nearly as much for protection if there were no guns to threaten people in the first place. Thanks for listening to my argument. Since this is a serious topic I hope that whoever takes this argument is mature and respectful enough to handle this especially after the recent massacre.