BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
this house believes that assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be made legal

Dr. Kevorkian also committed murder and did jail time for it, he got parole on one condition, to never give suicide advice to anyone again. http://en.wikipedia.org... God has a great plan for your life. God has created us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). He created us for a purpose. God has a specific plan in mind for everyone. "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" (Jeremiah 29:11). God's plan is for life, not death. The Bible teaches that both physical and spiritual death are the result of our sin and disobedience to God, but eternal life is a gift to those who receive it. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). The solution to despair and hopelessness is not suicide, but faith in God. Christ promises that He will give us rest from our problems.
Logic proves that natural man is aware of a greater cause. Religion has distorted that awareness.

Ok, quick wrap up: religion is not removed from the physical, science is not removed the non physical, the mind is capable of far more awareness than the from pure sensory input. Psychology (behavioural science) deals with motivation, desires etc and so is not a pure religous domain. And my opponents view of harmony is nothing more than basic taoist tenets, the very use of religion he argues against.
Logic proves that natural man is aware of a greater cause. Religion has distorted that awareness.

What I am about to purpose is entirely a product of my own mind, hence I expect loopholes and since I consider this an absolute fact, I believe I should be able to solve them accordingly. I will now begin.. Religion and Science are one. Relgion can be defined as the yearning of the subject to know its true nature. while science can be defined as the system in which the subject (through the object), exisits in. The subject (human mind), can only contemplate on what it gathers from the 5 senses. Therefore it is determental to "imagine" God, or or any greater thing, as it immediatly attains the flaws of Mankind, most notably, the lack of sensory understanding. Thereofore, attempting to understand "truth" or reality, through images leads us in a circle right back to manind, keeping us from attaining any real knowledge. Where science went wrong... Science adopted the scientific method put forward by Francis Bacon. It is a beautiful system that has been used to only half its necessary ability. Scientists only apply it to the object (dividable bodies), and not to the subject (indivisible bodies). this, to me, is even worse than all the crimes done by religion. The following facts are the grounds for my theory... Cause and Effect: a simple truth of everything, Subject and object. Balance: the result of a balanced cause. ex. (-)Acid + (+)base = Balance Extreme +: when the cause yeilds an unhealthy positive effect. Ex. base + base = Extreme + Extreme -: when the cause yeilds an unhealthy negative effect. Ex. acid + acid = extreme - Disuunion: both elements must have an equal opposite to yeild a good (balanced) result. 146 acid + 146 base = balance. Though this process makes perfect sense for objects, and is very clear. when applied to motives of people and desires of people, it proves we are striving for euphoria, or a complete union with all things. yet this subject has never been touched by science, and it has been left to the corruption of religion. Though increasingly intericate in relation to the subject, this can be applied to it. as well as everything our senses have ever experienced. It proves that everything is in relationship, constantly striving to reach a balance. the closer a subject is to balance, the better he/she may see the world, and the universe around them.
History is important in your education.

I think the point about learning History is about learning from past mistakes and we need to be glad that we can learn something about the past and why we did the things we did and that we should rely on past actions to sometimes help out with the future events. If you don't know why we learn history than why not just ask your history teacher or just be glad that your learning something useful. It's very nice to learn your family's history and what happend to some of the people in your culture. Some things may be bad about the past but at least it helps let your mind remember and enjoy something that is fun to learn.
History is important in your education.

First of all, I do not hate history, and I did pass that subject, with a 96 grade in card. But that's not really the point is it? I have understood the value of history, it is a subject that provides knowledge from the past, but what is it's use? That's the question. It is a subject that is hard to understand and requires more dedication than most subjects, it also requires lots of memory. But after a lot of hard work? What happens? Yes, I admit, history is a good thing to study since it's filled with entertaining stories and morals, but should the government make it compulsory and force the students to learn something most of them don't enjoy? I say no! We don't need to know the past. Instead, we need to visualize the future. As Elsa had said, "The past is in the past!" I think the snow queen agrees with me.
History is important in your education.

well it helps by understanding how people spoke back then and how they got hurt and how it effected thier lives. it would really help you by thinking what it must've been like to live the way that they did and what happend to help you understand better and why they would do the things they do. I also think that if you really want to understand history and learn what happend then go ahead! History will also allow you to think: what would you do in that situation? I also think that History will help you in future jobs to understand why they would do that. It would be horrible to be like those Jewish people when they were bricked up then starved to death. I actually listen in History because it helps you understand how you would fix a similar problem. I am mostly interested in the wars and the devastation that the wars caused. Ex. World War 2 ended the Great Depression. So I think all of you that hate History should listen for once and see what you can learn from it. Try to pass.........
History is important in your education.

History... It answers the question "what happened back then?" and "why did it happen?" But what do we actually learn from it? Do we gain logical thinking like we do in Mathematics? Do we practice our vocabulary like we do in Literature? Do we become acquaintances with different forms of living and non living things like we do in Science? Does it boost our creativity like in Music and Arts? Or do we fortify the nine components of Physical Fitness like we do in PE? Sadly, I don't think so. History is the study of the past... ok, so? I don't think that the sole purpose of History is to learn good deeds and manners, since it's called "History" and not "Values Education". I also do not think that History is the one that tackles brilliant stories, because literature has already took the slot. If so, then what is it for? That makes me wonder. Now readers, I ask you: If history wants you to repeat the good things that happened back then... Would you let history repeat itself?
History is important in your education.

I think it is because it helps you learn from past mistakes. It also helps you understand the economy and why people do what they do. I think that History is very interesting yet very devastating. I sometimes think that there is no way that it would help you until you understand why people make you learn it. I don't like how we used to torture people back in the 1900's. But it is interesting and yet very sad. It is especially interesting of how the nuclear bombs were used exept for now the U.S. has so many nuclear bombs we can blow up the whole world! It is very sad knowing that we can all be killed in the matter of months! That is a fact that history taught us so there is no way that we should flunk or just hate history for no reason. History helps and can be very interesting when you listen. There is so much you can do to help bring up your history grades and understand what your life will not be like in the future. I hope we will never torture or hurt people like that ever again.
should we end the federal reserve

Pro has once again ignored the quantitative evidence I provided showing that the Federal Reserve has immensely benefited the stability of the American economy through its monetary policy, more than *halving* the time the country has spent in recessions. That is a huge impact, and Pro has conceded it. . 1. Pro has not provided a source to indicate that Congress's passing of the Federal Reserve Act was "mindless". Dismiss his baseless claim. 2. I have no obligation to go fact-finding for Pro. He made the assertion that the Fed directly caused two of the biggest economic crises in US history, so he needs to back that up with solid evidence. All he has provided so far is some theoretical mechanism by which the Fed *could* have caused those crises. Reject this argument as a bare assertion. 4. As demonstrated in the CNN article from last round, people in general do not like the idea of their tax money being used to bail out banks, yet bailing the banks out was absolutely necessary to prevent economic collapse from ensuing. What the Fed did both saved the economy and prevented an increase in public distrust of the government. It was wholly justified. 5. Richard Nixon is the one who took the US off the gold standard. Eliminating the Fed for Nixon's alleged transgression of the Constitution is completely absurd. This argument remains non-topical. 6. The source was linked at the bottom, along with my other sources. .. Pro has dropped this argument. 7. No, it's not common knowledge. I could just as easily say "it's common knowledge that the Fed is a force for good in the economy" and win the debate that way. Dismiss Pro's baseless claim. 8. Pro totally ignores my evidence that the Fed is NOT a private corporation, and that it IS limited by Congress in a manner similar to other federal agencies which make the majority of our laws. Pro has dropped this argument. 9. See 7 10. See 5 .
should we end the federal reserve

The federal reserve destroyed the economy, not helped it. 1. Capitalists made and designed the bill, congress just mindlessly sighted it. 2. It's kindergarten economics, common sense, easily verifiable, you have fingers I'm not going to site something for you to say it's not true. 4. If it was just doing it's job then why was it hiding in the shadows about it?. 5. No, it is a part of the constitution, the federal reserve violates it, end of story. 6. That is not a source, it's a number in parentheses. 7. It is common knowledge, you don't need a source. 8. No they do not, it is a private corporation. 9. See 7. 10. See 5.
should we end the federal reserve

Pro completely drops my case. Long-term economic stability trumps everything he's said, and therefore he loses the debate. I'll address Pro's points anyways. 1. It may have been proposed by capitalists, but it was legitimately established by Congress in accordance with the Constitution, and therefore there was nothing illegal about it. 2. Still no source. 3. Dropped. 4. "The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday. The loans were made through a special loan program set up by the Fed in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse in March 2008 to keep the nation's bond markets trading normally" [1]. The "missing" 9 trillion dollars were a necessary expense to prevent the nation's economy from crashing. 5. This is not an argument for ending the Fed -- it is an argument for returning to the gold standard (a bad one, but an argument nonetheless). Dismiss it as non-topical. 6. Here ya go [2] 7. Still no source. 8. As demonstrated by the link under #6, Congress has a large amount of authority over the Fed, and members of Congress ARE elected, so the democratic process is still indirectly preserved. The majority of federal laws are crafted by agencies which Congress controls in a similar way, so this is not a unique situation in the US government. "In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats -- not elected representatives -- are running the show" [3]. 9. Still no source. 10. See 5. 11. Dropped. 12. Dropped. . [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.federalreserve.gov... [3] http://www.heritage.org...
should we end the federal reserve

1. The federal reserve act was proposed by a group of capitalists. 2. The Fed issued a surplus of money, inflation, more dollars are needed to equal stock, people think it will still rise, they buy into it to sell it later for more, bubble, crash, depression. 3. No it's not. 4. Here's your source: m.youtube.com/results?q=federal%20reserve%20missing%209trillion%20&sm=1 5. "Fix the standard weights and measures" means gold standard. 6. No source. 7. Common knowledge. 8. What ever happened to freedom and democracy? 9. Common knowledge. 10. The treasury is where you would put your gold and silver for certificates. 11. No it's not. 12. Check 11.
should we end the federal reserve

2000 character limit... My argument is simple -- historical evidence indicates that the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has overall served to keep the economy stable by maximizing booms and minimizing busts. Let's examine a detailed list of recessions which have occurred since the country's founding [1]. There have been 18 recessions over the 102 years that the Federal Reserve has existed, adding up to a grand total of 19 years and 10 months under recession. Meanwhile, during the 77 years of American history in which no central bank existed there were 20 recessions, adding up to roughly 37 years and 2 months total. To put that into perspective, 48% of the laissez faire era was spent in recession, whereas only 19% of the Federal Reserve era has been spent in recession. This means that without the Federal Reserve's intervention, economic downturns would more than *double* in severity. That alone is reason enough to negate the resolution. Onto Pro's case. 1. The part of the Constitution which Pro is referring to is the one which grants Congress the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." This is one of the Federal Reserve's roles, and the Federal Reserve was legitimately instituted by Congress in order to fulfill that role, so I'm not sure how that violates the Constitution. 2. Pro provides no source to back this bold assertion up, and therefore the assertion should be dismissed. 3. False [2]. 4. No source = dismissed. 5. Pro needs to provide a reference to a specific part of the Constitution in which the gold standard is mandated. 6. Actually, Congress does limit the Fed, as it has the authority to amend the Fed's charter at any time. 7. No source 8. So what if they're non-elected? Non-sequitur. 9. No source 10. What? 11. See 3 12. See 3 . [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.federalreserve.gov...
should we end the federal reserve

Reasons to end the federal reserve 1. The federal reserve violates article 1 section 8 sentence 5 of the constitution. 2. The federal reserve was the leading cause in both the great depression and the housing bubble. 3. The federal reserve is a privately owned central bank. 4. The federal reserve has made payments to person/persons unknown without the consent or even knowledge of the American people until just recently. 5. The federal reserve issues fiat while the constitution mandates a gold standard. 6. The federal reserve is given a unconstitutional unlimited power over the American economy. 7. The federal reserv has flooded the American economy with trillions of dollars without regards to the consequences to the American people. 8. The federal reserve is governed by a select few non elected officials. 9. The federal reserve act was not thoroughly read through by congress or president Wilson. 10. The federal reserve has robber the US treasury of its constitutional right to issue currency. 11. The federal reserve board of governors has implemented their power for their own personal interests without regard for the welfare of the people. 12. The federal reserve is privately owned, and unfit to govern the economy of any nation.
18th and 19th century white people are jerks

Victim of jerkiness #4: Arabs. Just because They said Bin Laden was hiding in Iraq, doesn't mean the U.S can just storm in and kill all the people that come to close with a gun! They might be trying to give Intel or Wanting to help with the mission. Even children. Now I admit some people may be suicidal bombers or Taliban gun men, but that doesn't give you the right to shoot people on sight!
18th and 19th century white people are jerks

Victim of jerkiness: Asians. During WW2, America put all the Japanese people of the country into concentration camp- like camps(though they didn't kill anybody, thank god!). Now you may be saying that they did it so they didnt do anything else related to blowing crap up. But, these Japanes people were citizens of Japan, who were not part of the military in any way! It was like the Holocaust all over again, but with no deaths. Talk about Jerky!
18th and 19th century white people are jerks

Victim of jerkiness #2: Native Americans. When Christopher Columbus and all those peeps sailed to new land, they were obviously going to stumble across people already there. They tried to trade with us and all that and what do we do in return? we kick them off their land, slaughter their families, and make some slaves! And once the native slaves started dying we went across the sea and captured and sold Africans like they were LIVESTOCK!We didn't deserve their help in WW2, they hired Navajo natives to send codes to one another in their language so the Japanese couldn't crack it, like they could English. What do we do in return? when they were under attack, the U.S left them there to die. And what do the Japanese do when they figured out what language it was? they captured and tortured poor Navajos. Talk about being JERKY!
18th and 19th century white people are jerks

The Ku Klux Klan was mostly non-violent but sadly there were a couple of fringe groups that did murder and torture African-Americans. Infact Marcus Garvey, one of the most famous Black Nationalist Leaders, allied with the Klan's Imperial Wizard Edward Young Clarke. Garvey stated that "I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying." We also must look at the White Slaves owned by Africans. In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries. That sounds pretty Jerkie to me.
18th and 19th century white people are jerks

Victim of jerkiness #1: African Americans. Now you may be thinking I'm going to talk all about slavery, but today I'm going to talk about after slavery. Until the mid to late 20th century, blacks were victims of many acts of jerkiness. For example, the Klu Klux Klan. They didn't think blacks should be equal, so what do they do? They torture and KILL poor blacks for this reason. People used and sometimes still do discriminate blacks, but WE ARE the ones who brought them here to begin with! Talk about being JERKY, America!
Conduct Should Be Considered When Voting On Debates On Debate.org

ResolutionThe question, "Who had better conduct?", should be considered when voting on debates on debate.orgProHas the burden of proof and 30,000 characters to demonstrate that conduct should be considered when voting on debates on debate.org. Since there are only characters, there are no rounds, there is no need to forfiet rounds or worry about...well...conduct.ConHas only 20,000 characters to rebuttal Pro and to provide counter claims.May the most convincing argument win.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

If a country gets caught developing nuclear weapons, we will have economic sanctions on the country and we will have the leader of the country go to a place where a nuclear bomb was dropped, for example, Hiroshima to see the damage made by the nuclear bombs. The United Nations will be enforcing the ban if actually banned. To be specific from the United Nations, we will have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be enforcing the ban.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

You are correct. However, there has been only one incident of that. Dropping nuclear weapons is a rare thing. Even if it is shot, we can shoot back at them if we have nuclear weapon so it is technically like revenge. Right? If you say you want to ban it, how will you ban it? What if one country secretly develops nuclear weapons? What are we going to do with the nuclear weapons that are banned? Who is going to be enforcing this ban? Please answer these questions for me.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

If we don’t ban nuclear weapons quickly, there is a possibility that a country will release their nuclear weapons. The largest nuclear bomb is equivalent to fifty-million tons of TNT. In perspective, that is about 3333 times more powerful than little boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we don’t ban nuclear weapons, one country may try to conquer the world and/or wipe-out the whole planet’s population.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

Thank you for making this debate. 1. "A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us." by Margaret Thatcher 2. "Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent agains nuclear adventure by an adversary." by Atal Bihari VajpayeeWhat 1. 2. are both saying, is that it is more dangerous without nuclear weapons. It is not only the perspective of the "risks" but there is an element of "safety" as well.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

I am for banning nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is a weaponthat causes huge destruction. So far, we have confirmed that at least 9 countries have nuclear weapons. The USspends at least $60 billion on nuclear weapons each year. If we didn’t have nuclear weapons, we could be using that money for more important thing like theeconomy and government. We have over 20000 nuclear weapons right now (2000 of them are ready for trigger anytime) That is way to dangerous.