BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral

So I'll just parapharase my opponent's points and post my responses. "I believe that passive euthanasia is an immoral practice" Thank you. I win. You have just conceded the debate to me, since you agree that euthanasia is immoral. It doesn't matter that active might be moral. You have shown yourself that passive is immoral, so I win. "I think this position is completely barbaric, primitive, unjust and immoral" Ok, fine. Passive euthanasia is wrong and immoral. But, you forget, you have to show that it is moral, or else you lose the debate. The topic is; Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral. You have to defend the entire thing, not just part of it. The topic is not; Active Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral. So, by extension, you have to prove all of it, not just part of it. I have to prove the following: Euthanasia in a medical setting is not moral. So if I can show that euthanasia in some form is not moral, I win. If you want the full argument, look to my first speech. You forget about this argument, so by extension, you have tried to argue only part of the resolution, not the whole thing. "My opponent may think that it feels wrong to go through with the lethal injection process. I believe it would feel even more wrong to just leave them there to suffer when they have made it explicit that they would prefer the lethal injection to end their suffering." So either way, it is wrong, so I win, since you agree that it feels wrong to go through with lethal injection. So since you say it yourself, I can use it. Since you agree that it is wrong for lethal injection, it is wrong, and immoral. I win. "In most cases killing is wrong. But euthanasia is not an act of murder. It is an altruistic act in compliance with the best wishes of the patient." The problem with saying euthanasia is not killing is because that opens the door to a whole host of problems. If euthanasia is not killing, then what is it? The peaceful taking of ones life, sometimes without the victim's consent? ~~~ Conclusion: So my opponent forgets that he has to protect the whole resolution, and he valiantly tries to prove one part of it. However, he ignores my argument that directly counters his. He ignores the fact tha euthanasia is killing, and killing immoral, so euthanasia is immoral. He tries to respond to this by making the claim that euthanasia is not killing, but this is ridiculous. If its not killing, then what is it? The exiting of life from one body, aided by the medicine of another? Also, my opponent forgets about the cases where people kill victims, without the victim's consent. In that case, my opponent completely ignores my argument. Thank you.
Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral

To make this debate realistic, we should take a look at the medical settings in which such practices occur. I will speak mainly from a Canadian perspective and with reference to the laws in Canada. There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive euthanasia is legal in Canada. The common example of passive euthanasia is when someone that requires life support to survive, gets the life sustaining equipment taken away from them so that they are left to suffer until the underlying causes of their disease manages to take away their life. Active euthanasia is illegal in Canada. The most common example of this is when a terminally ill patient, such as a cancer patient asks for a lethal dose of morphine to end their suffering. My opponent objects to any form of euthanasia, claiming that euthanasia is immoral. I believe that passive euthanasia is an immoral practice - letting someone suffer until their disease manages to take their life, when we have the option of terminating this persons suffering more quickly through the means of lethal injection. Thus, I am a proponent of active euthanasia, which is currently illegal in Canada. Since my opponent is against euthanasia, he is saying that someone lying on their deathbed with terminal cancer should suffer out their disease until cancer cells have managed to spread its way into the vital organs to cease their function. Patients may gradually lose their ability to eat and breathe as the disease penetrates the lungs and digestive organs. Spreading of the disease to the brain may also result in cerebral damage resulting in complete mental break down and more suffrage. When chemotherapy treatments and organic diets have failed to work, and doctors have given up on the patient, and when this dying patient decides that he/she would rather take a lethal injection of morphine to end the suffering, rather than spend the following days or weeks waiting for death, my opponent says 'no you can't'. My opponent would prefer that this suffering individual remain in their deathbed for the days or weeks, however long it will take for the disease to work its way through the patients system, causing more distress and pain with each day, until finally the patient breathes their last breathe. I think this position is completely barbaric, primitive, unjust and immoral. Certainly if one consents to the lethal injection, is destined to die in the coming weeks, and is suffering dramatically, they should have the right to opt for a route of less suffrage. My opponent may think that it feels wrong to go through with the lethal injection process. I believe it would feel even more wrong to just leave them there to suffer when they have made it explicit that they would prefer the lethal injection to end their suffering. In most cases killing is wrong. But euthanasia is not an act of murder. It is an altruistic act in compliance with the best wishes of the patient.
Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral

Before I begin, I would like to extend a welcome to my opponent, for this is his first debate. However, I'm not going to cut him any slack because of it. My opponent has graciously allowed my to take the stage first, so I will comly with his request and do so. Here I go: Basic Background on the Topic: Euthenasia is one of the most contested topics in all ethics. Euthanasia is, as defined by Merriam Webster: 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. So basically, euthanasia is, in layman's terms, the killing of a hopelessly sick or injured person or animal in a painless(so we believe) way because we want to be merciful. Burdens: This is an aspect of any debate that is always contested, so I will take care of it now. Because the topic asks of us a moral question, my opponent and I must be arguing to our best ability that euthanasia in a medical setting is a morally good act. My opponent will argue that it is a morally good act, and I will argue that it is a morally bad act. Whoever is better at showing it is either good or bad wins the debate. As simple as that. So if I am successful in proving that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moral, then I win the debate. If I show that it is wrong in even just one instance, I win, since I have shown that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moraly. My opponent must show how euthanasia is always moral, since not doing so would be like admitting that euthanasia might not be moral, in which case I win. To my points: 1. Euthanasia is killing, no matter how you make it sound. Killing is always bad. We might kill because we might think we have to, but that doesn't make it right. Because killing is always immoral, euthanasia is always immoral. How do we know killing is immoral? We know killing is immoral because: a. We feel it is. Our feelings and conciensce are guides to morality. If we were to ask ourself why something is wrong, most of us would say, 'Because it feels wrong.' This of course, is assuming you don't know any moral theories to explain it. b. We are given no right to do so. If you cannot justify killing in any sense. c. Justifying killing would lead us on a path to destruction because we would be able to justify all sorts of other atrocities, due to the fact that we might think we are helping the victim.This argument is an argument that applies to all parts of this debate. However, later in this speech, I will be branching the debate into more specific areas. 2. Here is where I branch off. I'm running out of characters, so I'll be brief: a. With consent. Euthanasia is still not moral, because we are killing. Look above for justification. b. Without consent. Euthanasia is especially not moral, because nothing has given the killer permission to do the act. Just because he/she believes he is acting out of mercy, the victim might desir
The US Federal Government should legalize the manufacturing, sale and possession of all drugs.

My opponents first point is that crime rate would go down if drugs were legalized, pointing out that "17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs". But, of all the inmates in prison for drug offenses, only 27% are in there on simple drug possession charges(1). That leaves another 73% of individuals arrested on drug crimes other than possession, use, distribution or manufacturing charges. Those mostly include violent crimes, because of psychological effects on the brain by drugs. And that rate would skyrocket if drugs went mainstream.My opponent also argue that drugs would no longer be smuggled across the border because of a lack of need. But, with the free sale of it, drug lords will still likely want into it.I cannot cite any sources about the rise of illegal immigration in America due to drug legalization because it is a theoretical situation that can only be proven with tests. And these tests would be a waste to attempt to perform as it would require the legalization of all drugs. I would also like to note that the drug cartels could treat the American sales as a standard business.And the fact that we have domestic jobs has never stopped illegal immigration. It actually would increase it.My opponent states that legalizing drugs would not legalize DUI, which I agree with. But, there are many cases of drunk driving. Since alcohol is legal, people drink it. And people drive drunk largely because their common sense is distorted(2). And drugs also tend to distort common sense. And drug legalization would greatly increase drug use, which would lead to an increase in drugged drivingAnd, the government should regulate what their people put into their body due to economic and social reasons. Among these reason's includes the negative effects on students(3), the negative effects in the workplace(3)(Which would lead to economic problems), and the bad impression it would likely leave on our allies, as many are against drug legalization.Sources___________________________________(1)http://www.justice.gov...(2)http://alphastore.org...(3)http://www.med.unc.edu...
The US Federal Government should legalize the manufacturing, sale and possession of all drugs.

I am excited for a good debateDrug Legalization, while it may be a good idea in concept, has many drawbacks. There's the obvious, like increase in drug related crimes, but the less thought of things, like increases in immigration. It can negatively effect society as a whole a lot more than it can benefit it.Crimes:Drugs have been blamed for a lot of crime, and there are statistics to back it(1). People who use drugs are 16 times more likely to commit theft. They are also 10 times more likely to commit non-aggravated assault. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 78.7 arrested males tested positive for drugs, and in New York, New York, 82.1 percent of arrested females tested positive for drugs. Those are massive numbers already, and those numbers would skyrocket if drugs were legalized.Illegal immigration:Illegal immigration is one of the largest topics in America right now, and a major cause of illegal immigration is drug sales. (2) While I'm not saying that all illegal immigrants are drug dealers, they do have a sizable chunk, a chunk that would rise if drugs became legalized in America. Already, on a yearly basis, an estimated 11.6 million pounds of cocaine are brought into the country by illegal immigrants(2). If it got legalized, then that number could double or triple, with still no money going to the US (via taxes).Drugs and Driving:Drugs are a large problem when driving. In a 2007 poll, 12 percent of seniors admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana(3). And in another recent study, driving ability was negatively affected by drugs in a "dose-dependent fashion"(3). Once again, these rates will skyrocket if drugs are legalized.There are many more reasons that legalizing drugs would be bad. I may not even be able to list them all during this debate. I await your responseSources_______________________________(1)http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...(2)http://www.nccivitas.org...(3)http://www.drugabuse.gov...
It is logically impossible to not be a nerd by the age of 30 unless you are mentally retarded.

What makes someone mentally retarded? Is it their IQ levels? Because many people who have high IQ's do not always succeed, and not everyone with low IQ's fail, so obviously IQ level can not be the answer in at least my opponent's eyes, or at least it can't be the only factor. So, then what's mentally retarded? 'People may not be experts in fields that they enjoy to partake in. Let's look at musicians. Many are over the age of 30, and do not know everything about it, as there is an endless amount of things to learn in music. Let's look at chefs, now. Again, many over the age of 30 that have been participating in the hobby for many, many years, and still have much to learn. So far, we have two people who are not guaranteed experts in their fields, and yet we cannot conclude that they are retarded. There are also people in fields, that are over the age of 30, that believe they are experts in such fields, but learn that some of the things they believe are wrong. People do not have to be experts in anything in order to be considered not retarded. Not everyone is my opponent's definition of nerd and everyone that is not aren't automatically considered retarded
It is logically impossible to not be a nerd by the age of 30 unless you are mentally retarded.

I think you will find that it is less about how I define expert and more about how I define technical field.Technical: requiring special knowledge to be understood.Field: A particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest.A benefits scrounger is an expert at what they do (especially if they were one from age 18 all the way through to 30). Very few could live such a 'disgustingly' humble life and shamelessly tell all their friends and family that they've been unemployed for so long. It is also likely that they are uncannily adept at manipulating the welfare officers to believe their story over and over again, requiring sever expertise at being both patient and a brilliant actor.It is less about what job one has and more about whatever aspect of their life they value most (which could be their job). Sure, you definitely do get the stereotypical lab geek, computer geek or history boffin from time to time but I am talking about every single 30 year old, in today's society, that is not mentally retarded.So... Yeah...
It is logically impossible to not be a nerd by the age of 30 unless you are mentally retarded.

Being an expert in a technical field implies fields of science or liberal arts. Define expert to make this easier to understand. I can point out how your claim is wrong with better definitions. An expert in my understanding is someone who has mastered a skill or a craft, if you disagree, then say so and I will use your definition (with in reason) from here on out. But, there are many musicians who have not mastered their instrument or part, baseball players as well, professional wrestlers, actors, teachers, drivers, authors, and engineers who do not have a full grasp on a field by the time they are thirty. Some may just be getting in to a new career field at the age of thirty, meaning it will take time to reach expert levels.
This house believes that females are better students than males.

"This house believes that females are better students than males."You one tricky bastard. Also the title states "students" could be a fitness student, dance club, or what ever. DOesn't specify age!"You, on the other hand, went on and began to explain situations in later life. Crime rates and murders are completely irrelevant."See which student is more violent school then.asdakufgaiefsugaf'[QWWAOU im busy
This house believes that females are better students than males.

My dear opponent, I am afraid that you have gone a little off topic. The title of this debate clearly states that females are better students, and win when it comes to school. You, on the other hand, went on and began to explain situations in later life. Crime rates and murders are completely irrelevant. With that out of the way, I wish to state that no matter what pro might say, both genders are equal when it comes to GRADES. Both Boys and girls either fail or pass exams, and get either decent, above average or below average grades in normal class work or mock exams. I await your rebuttal and final argument.
This house believes that females are better students than males.

"This house believes that females are better students than males"Con belives that females are not better than boys talking about females involving in highschools scenarios where he uses the girl texting in classrooms where they would be most bitchy about. What do boys do, sit home, play games, whine, and sh*t while girls win in life because they have friends and can be happy for their years. "Either way, both genders are as bad as the other, and therefore neither of them make the better student."In history, girls cant do sh*t while boys can be a badass knight or cr#p which nulifys your statement. You suggest that both genders are equal but is that full of bullsht, female create babies and go through insanely painful situations such as, labour, getting ****, period and much more while boys can be free from everything. "fact that girls muck about in classrooms just as much as boys"Good.Females are the primary victims of rape and your saying they are both equal, and yet you specify in highschool but the title clearly states females and males without a age range.Girls have different interests because of what they see. Most boys causes crimesWhat did you say; http://en.wikipedia.org...Yes, male has succeded more homocides than girls."However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males" - Wiki Females wins in life beacause of their crime lower crime rates, welfare, social life and more.Now what?
This house believes that females are better students than males.

I disagree with the statement, "females are better students than males" because of the fact that girls muck about in classrooms just as much as boys. Whether it's secret texting or just chatting to their friends, girls can be unfocused, show a poor amount of effort, and as a result of this, get bad grades. However, this does not mean that I am saying that boys are better students. They have as many flaws and distractions as girls do. For example kids who are labelled "class clown" are often males, and there are more male delinquents than female. Either way, both genders are as bad as the other, and therefore neither of them make the better student.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Yes, It is the people that write the things on social media but without the internet how would these things be spread. Scientist proved that cyberbullying affect more children than verbal bullying. Because people are hiding behind a screen so they think they won"t get caught by anyone. Where verbal bullying you can be confronted by the people you are bullying or adults. Cyberbullying can also be more likely to cause mental health issues because it tends to happen more often than verbal bullying. Because people are always on the internet and don"t like confrontation.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

The internet contributes a lot to the increase of mental health according to Dr Matthew a primary care physician at Piedmont. He says he sees frequently among his patients too much computer time can increase your anxiety. This just shows that people spend to much time on the internet. People that spend more time on the internet are more likely to experience mental health issues. In 2015 there were a survey called National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing which showed that 1 in 5 age 15 to 85 years old will experience mental health issues in there lifetime due to the internet.
Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

"That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up." This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.