BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public

I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the "diagnosis" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their "patients" to have serious medical problems -Thank you
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

MAce Windu lost to Anakin because he thought he was on his side, that's a totally irrlevant fight.Mace Windu's 'vapaad' not working on Dooku is only true if Dooku doens't dare to use electric or strangle force which he has many times done.Saying someone's superpower won't work well in a fight isn't the same as saying they will lose it. Windu doens't need Vapaad to win, he is stronger and has better reflexes as well as endurance.
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

My Links are not the exact same as I have links to Comics and Book sources and even a Youtube Link showing us multiple duels Dooku has fought in all of which are canon so I have not just got Wikia sources sadly Wikia sources are the only sources you can really get on the internet with both Canon and Non-Canon facts. Conclusion: The reason I believe Count Dooku can best Mace Windu in a battle is due to Dooku's skill as a duelist as he is a master of Makashi and Mace's dueling form Vaapad fails to be effective against Dooku as Dooku doesn't let his anger or hate show in battle he always remains calm and collected. Mace is to wild with his attacks and leaves himself open which in Revenge Of The Sith you see this when Anakins cut's his arm off opponents that usually use wide swings fail against Makashi specialist because of their skill at precise strikes. Vaapad for those who do not know it is the 7th dueling form in the Star Wars Universe which is an aggressive form that draws from their opponents hate and anger. If you watch the Youtube link I posted in my first argument you will see that Dooku always remains calm and collected never letting his emotions take full advantage of him. This Battle has also been discussed by famous Star Wars Youtubers who agree with my opinion that Dooku would come out on top. Mace is just to wild and under experienced when it comes to fighting Dooku who has had the pleasure of fighting plenty of Jedi and has been sent on missions to fight criminals and such long before the Clone Wars plus Dooku uses the force a lot more than Mace using it to often through his opponents off and I can see this working against Mace.. Thus I believe Dooku would triumph over a long hard fight with Mace due to Mace's wild swings and his lack of force attacks compared to Dooku. Sources: http://starwars.wikia.com... http://starwars.wikia.com... http://starwars.wikia.com... Book Sources: Revenge Of The Sith http://www.readcomics.tv...
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

Your links are literally the same as what I can use so sources vote shouldn't be given based on this nonsense.Windu has more physical endurance than Dooku as his body is fitter as opposed the frail one of Dooku. You keep saying 'Dooku doesn't get angry' but electric force and strangling force both imply the user is furious with their opponent which is what motivates that form of the force.Windu is physically fit and mentally capable of maintaining stability throughout the fight. Dooku's old frail body can't keep up and as the fight drags on Dooku's 'equal capability' will become worthless as his body tires.Windu isn't just a good soldier, the man was a general and knows strategy of war whethee it's 20 vs 20or 1v1.
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

Windu is younger, fitter and faster. Windu has enough roomk on his handle to both hold it onehanded and two hadned whereas Dooku's is specificlaly designed for one-handed holding making him weaker than Windu when it comes to close-combat.Both are mentally adept at fighting so the fight won't be won by one outsmarting the other; it will be won by the one who tires out last and doesn't make a fatal error by slipping up before that.Windu is simply too strong for Dooky physically. The reason Anakin lost to Dooku despite being younger and fitter is that unlike Windu, Anakin isn't brilliant at actual saber fighting, his strength lies in force manipulation which is why he got bored of the light side and their restrictions on strangling and electric force. Windu is simply the best at overall war strategy.Source: http://starwars.wikia.com...The following are true based on that source:1) Windu was the first of the entire Jedi masterminds to realize Palapatine had turne don them and immediatley sought to act on it and if it hadn' tbeen for Anakin's betrayal he would have succeede din doing so.2) Windu is one of the best psycho-analysis based fighters there is. He analyses the enemy's psyche and fights based on what he can gather of how they think. For instance he said to Padme "You know, m'lady, that Count Dooku was once a Jedi. He couldn't assassinate anyone. It's not in his character." in Clone Wars because he knows Dooku to have a strong preference for drawing out fights and never finishign his enemy off as he's too kind hearted to so do. Windu knows the weakness of almost any enemy and with Palapatine he knew he simpyl ha to provoke him to electocute innto his lighsaber (which actually helped power it if anything) and was about to win the fight had Anakin not surprise attacked him.3) From Jango Fett to pretty much any enemy who is fit and able to maanevre in battlefield, Windu has either slain them or masterminded their demise by his orders (which are sometimes seen as Yoda's orders as the two closely collaborate before making any order independent of the other).Windu is very intellectual, more than the 'old and wise' Yoda to be honest. Windu was just the quieter one of the pair and let Yoda take the limelight. The two masterminded the entire Jedi order for many years and Windu was a very 'do first talk later' type of leader, which perhaps was his downfall as he simply tried to kill Palpatine instead of warning the others while Yoda was mroe of a 'think and talk and then do afterwards' or he'd probably put it as 'first think, later talk.'Windu is a healthy 30-or-so year old black male (age not stated but judged by his looks). It's possible he's much older, around Yoda's age, but has used the force to hinder aging. On the other hand Dooku is a very old white male. I only mention race as it's known that blacks have slightly better baseline athletic skills and endurance than other races for reasons including denser skeletons and proportionally larger organs (http://www.popularsocialscience.com...).
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

Con claims this fight is unfair but I disagree here is why. Darth Tyranus or better known Count Dooku was a experienced Jedi Master before turning to the Darkside. Dooku's role within the Jedi order actually gives him more experience in combat than other Jedi as he was dispatched usually to deal with crimes/wars. This means he would be fighting of criminals including mandalorians however a mandalorian is nothing compared to the skill and power of a Jedi especially a Jedi Master however Dooku was taught by Yoda and was Yoda's last apprentice this obviously means he was very well trained as Yoda is possibly the most powerful Jedi of this Era apart from Anakin Skywalker. Lightsaber Combat: Dooku studied Form II: Makashi a Jedi fighting form that worked on footwork coupled with precise strikes. Dooku would eventually master this Form of Lightsaber Combat and was noted to be the most talented duelist of this form. Dooku would also go on to train General Grievous the famed Jedi Killer of the Clone Wars Era it is worth noting that General Grievous was trained in all Lightsaber forms and yet could never best Dooku no matter what form he used even Makashi's supposed counter Djem. To see Dooku's skill with Makashi just watch this video of all of Dooku's fights in the Clone Wars. Experience: Dooku is far my experienced than Mace could ever hope to be not only was Dooku one of the eldest members of the Jedi Council but he was sent with other Jedi to fight before the Clone Wars which already gives him an advantage in combat. When Dooku left the order and formed the C. I. S [Confederacy Of Independent Systems] Dooku faced many Jedi even Dark Jedi and he always came out on top. Force Abilities: Dooku is one of the most intelligent force users and is way more experienced than Mace for example Dooku is a Sith Sorcerer which requires you to be more connected with the force. Dooku can be seen using his force abilities when necessary using force lightning just at the right moment to throw an enemy off guard or force them to submit. Worthy Notes: Windu's dueling style is Form VII known as Vaapad which allows him to draw power from the Darkside. This is why he was able to put up such a decent fight against Palpatine however Dooku always remains calm in battle never letting his emotions getting the better of him making Vaapad useless as Mace would have nothing to draw his power from. Dooku may be old but has kept his calm against agressive duelist such as Anakin Skywalker and Savage Oppress it is also worth noting that just single hits from Savage was enough to send Dooku to other sides of rooms yet even after facing Oppress he was still able to take on Asajj Ventress besting her and almost ending her life. I await Con's argument.
Count Dooku [Pro] Vs Mace Windu [Con]

This debate is simply just for Star Wars Fans who have a great amount of knowledge of the Star Wars Universe [Canon & Legends] However for the simplicity of this battle we will be taking the Canon versions of these characters and pitting them against each other. If you are going to accept this Debate please make sure you are aware of the Lore of Star Wars Canon. Let's Debate: Darth Tyranus Vs Mace Windu R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Counter-Arguments R4: Conclusions P.S Let's try to have a little fun :3
Euthanasia

Rebuttal 1: Pro Fails to support why a doctor should euthanize their patients. My definiton still stands. The definition of a doctor is a person who is skilled in the science of medicine : a person who is trained and licensed to treat sick and injured people. <-- No where does it say to terminate a patients life or speed up their patients death.- Speeding up the process of death is not humane because - It ends an innocent human life - Shows that human life is disposable - The patient could have been depressed and lost a sense of reasoning. And could have regretted it later onThis shows that a doctor can do a better job of killing their patients than caring for their medical needs. A doctor should not be judge, jury, executioner on their own patients. Rebuttal 2: Death is not the answer to every terminally ill patient's problem because they could have been healed the next day. Instead the patients life is taken away just because he/she feels the need to end their life. Assisting a patient to their death is immoral because the doctor is A.) Taking away a patients life instead of taking care of his medical needs.B.) It is legally murdering someone. Or assisted suicide.http://www.pccef.org...
Euthanasia

Thank you, Con.Rebuttal: Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's PurposeCon argues honoring the wish to die of an individual suffering from an ailment/injury that will eventually take their life is inhumane. Humane:-having or showing compassion or benevolence.-marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals Speeding up the process of death (as requested) to alleviate misery is humane. It is being compassionate and considerate in regards to their wishes.Rebuttal: Euthanasia is ImmoralSometimes death is the best treatment for a sick or injured person. It is a cold hard truth, and honoring the patients wishes to speed up that process is merciful and moral.Rebuttal: Argument for lifeI have already addressed this argument in round one. My right to life should not disallow me from my right to freedom (in this case freedom from pain) or pursuit of happiness.Back to you, Con.
Euthanasia

Rebuttal 1: Killing an innocent human being is not humane in any possible shape or form. Even if the patient is requesting death, they might suffer from depression or in a confused state that allows them to make risky desicions. They might regret it later on. And on to my next point, the defenition of a doctor is -doctor noun doc·tor \G2;däk-tər\ : a person who is skilled in the science of medicine : a person who is trained and licensed to treat sick and injured people No where does it say to assist suicide on their patients. Rebuttal 2: It is also immoral for doctors to assist on terminating their patients life even though there job is to save and treat sick and injured people. Arguement for life: Every person has a special place in this world and should be preserved. Euthanasia dehumanizes terminally-ill patients and robs them of their life. Innocent people should not be taken their life away just because of one desicion. Definition Of Doctor: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Euthanasia

Thank you, Con! I look forward to your right to life argument in round 3. Rebuttal: Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's Purpose. “We can all agree that doctors should save lives, not end them.” I would disagree with this statement. Obviously, a patient with a terminal illness is beyond saving, and the priority shifts to making them comfortable. If comfort cannot be had (and the patient requests death), then medical professionals are the most qualified persons to assist in achieving that desire humanely. As to the specific examples Con provides (comatose patients), it requires a “non-voluntary” euthanasia which is death without consent or request. This is very different from what I set out to defend in round one (voluntary euthanasia), and requires no rebuttal from me. Rebuttal: Euthanasia is Immoral. Con has again argued for non-voluntary euthanasia with his example of euthanasia in which a father murdered his daughter with cerebral palsy. Not to mention, his example was not carried out with the assistance or guidance of medical professionals. This does not address voluntary euthanasia as established in round 1. As far as the moral argument, it would be immoral to allow a dying person (or animal) to suffer a slow and painful death when we have the ability to end their pain quickly at their request. Con has not addressed my arguments for voluntary euthanasia. Back to you, sir!
Euthanasia

Thanks Pro, here are my arguements. I will make better arguements in round two because i don't have alot of time in my hands.Euthanasia Violates a Doctor's Purpose: We can all agree that doctors should save lives, not end them. Euthanasia is no different. It ends a life without knowing if they will make a full recovery. For example, if a person in a coma was euthanized, we would never know if that person will wake up and live their normal life again. But euthanasia avoids this possibility and procceeds to end their life anyways. Doctors and nurses are suppose to care,nurture, and support a person in life support. Not end their life for the sake of convience. Euthanasia is Immoral: It is immoral because it ends an innocent human life, which is legal murder. Anyways ending an innocent human life is always wrong. It dehumanizes them of their right to live. None the less pro argues that it will end the patient's suffering but ending someones suffering isn't always morally right. For example, a man euthanized her daughter by suffocating her in his car. She was suffering from celebral pulsy. The man was later charged with second degree murder. This does not sound like a human choice.Video: -----> I will make more arguements on the right to life for round two. Anyways, good luck.
Euthanasia

Definitions Since Con has not clarified, let us have Merriam Webster define ‘euthanasia’ for us: The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. [1] Burden Burden of proof will be shared. RXR is against euthanasia in all instances, and I will be arguing for a limited euthanasia. If I am able to successfully argue for euthanasia in any case, then I will have met my burden. If RXR is able to successfully argue against euthanasia in all cases, then he should get your votes. Euthanasia is a process by which an individual may have their doctor assist them with suicide. It is generally considered in cases in which a patient has an incurable illness that causes extreme and chronic pain. In these circumstances, an individual may wish to forgo their right to life and request death. There are different kinds of euthanasia, but I will only be advocating voluntary euthanasia (VE). VE is only justifiable when a person, completely cognizant of the implications, requests death for the purpose of ending suffering and/or die with integrity due to inevitable suffering. I will argue it is unethical to deny a competent request to die in such a situation. Right to Die Some have suggested we have a right to death. This is tied to the concept of death with integrity. When death is imminent, an individual may decide to end their life before an illness has reduced them to a shell of their former selves. In this way, they can end their own suffering before it becomes unbearable, and also save their family and friends the horror of witnessing a slow and painful decline of their loved one. A right to death follows from having dominion over one's own body. Wasted resources If we look at VE from a utilitarian aspect, then there is the matter of resources spent on people who wish to die - resources which could be better spent on ailments which are curable for patients who wish to live. By allowing VE we can increase the overall quality of care provided by hospitals by reducing time and money spent on many destined for imminent death. Right to Life My opponent will probably argue for a right to life, and I would like to preemptively address that now. No doubt, RXR and I will agree to a right to life. That is the right for an individual to expect life not to be unjustly unimpeded of it by other individuals. I would simply argue euthanasia does not violate this right. We all have the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’, but my right to life should not disallow me from my right to pursuit of happiness or liberty, which in this case would be the single desire to have freedom from chronic suffering through death. I look forward to my opponent’s argument against euthanasia as well as his rebuttal to my arguments. Good luck, Con!
Euthanasia

Thanks, Con!Rebuttal 1My opponent seems to be stuck on the fact that a doctor is trained to treat the sick or injured, but misses the underlying reason why one becomes a doctor: to help others. Sometimes, helping others is limited to respecting their wishes and doing everything possible to prevent suffering. I advocate for individuals medically trained to assist in euthanasia because having someone who is familiar with medical techniques is much more likely to administer a humane end. Otherwise, one must be content with an individual who is ignorant of the proper way to prevent suffering and allow for the possibly of causing more suffering or an agonizing death. At any rate, this is not crucial to my euthanasia case since it is about the right to have it, and not who administers it.1. If a person if suffering, it is moral to do all that is in our power to stop it. Innocence is irrelevant and assumed by Con.2. If we have the right to life, then we also have the right to death. The fact that an individual feels their potential is gone does not make their life disposable anymore than a natural death makes life disposable. At any rate, the value they put on their own life is much more relative than any value Con assumes.3. I only advocate voluntary euthanasia when it can be competently requested by the patient. I do not assume someone who wishes to die is being irrational. A patient who realizes 1. Death is near, 2. until the end their will be suffering, 3. family resources are being spent in vain on this suffering, may find euthanasia is reasonable.Also, on a side note, I am not sure what is meant by "they will regret it later on". I know of no person doing anything intentionally after they have died, so this seems nonsensical to me.Rebuttal 2:"Death is not the answer to every terminally ill patient's problem because they could have been healed the next day. Instead the patients life is taken away just because he/she feels the need to end their life."Perhaps, Con is not aware of what "terminally ill" means.Terminally ill:A person who is sick and is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life. If a person is diagnosed as terminally ill, it is because there is no treatment that can make them better.A.) I addressed why I believe a medically trained individual should assist. Con is welcome to disagree with my reasoning. I will leave that for the voters to determine.B.) "It is legally murdering someone."Perhaps, Con is not aware you cannot 'murder' someone legally. That is an oxymoron. Plus, I have not encouraged any illegal activity.Murder:the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.Thanks, Con. You have the floor!
Dictatorship is better than Democracy and/or "Free Will" government (Democratic, Republic)

As Con forfeited Round 2, I have to set the rules again prior to the debate. Rules affects the motion of this debate, and even disobedience and forfeit can affect it. By forfeit, the effects can be affected, so, to still make this effective, let us change it: Round 3: Argument from Con Round 4: Rebuttals from Arguments (No added Argument) Round 5: Conclusion (No added Argument) I still expect Con from Round 3. Jesus bless everyone.