BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

Alright, I will take the con side of this argument. I guess to start, euthanasia is illegal in most states and the question would be, why would making this legal be the right choice. The biggest thing with the opposing side is euthanasia is basically assisted suicide and is an inhumane way to end a persons life. I know this act is preformed to relieve a persons suffering, however it seems as though there are other ways to help with a persons suffering rather that just ending their life. Could there be another way to relieve a persons pain and suffering like certain drugs? A few questions for this topic I have are: Is euthanasia an only option for certain diseases? Is it the last resort in some cases? Out of the states where euthanasia is not legal, is there a large population of people that would support euthanasia? As I said before, could there be another option to relieve pain and suffering without ending a persons life?
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

This issue is not as pressing as it has been in the past, but euthanasia, in general, has largely been debated, and I would like to continue that debate, arguing for the "Pro" side of euthanasia for the sick and elderly. Euthanasia, by definition, is the intentional taking of life in order to relieve pain and suffering, and for the sake of the argument, I would like to say that I believe euthanasia should be committed by a medical doctor, and only if the person requests to be euthanized. That being said, I really think that euthanasia should be legalized across the US. The rights given to the people by the United States Constitution include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that death, regardless of cause, is an inevitable part of life, the Constitution also gives the people the right to die. If we are then given the right to die, why can we not choose how it is done? Secondly, there is no reason why the federal government or a state should interfere with the private matter of someone's death. Euthanasia itself causes no harm to any other person that would possibly be involved (like a family member in the room or something), and as such, should be left alone by any form of government. If anyone would like to argue the "Con" side of euthanasia, I would appreciate it - and if you really do believe that it shouldn't be legalized in America, what would it take to convince you?
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

Alright, the one thing that I see that is stopping this from becoming legal is personal opinion. I feel as though the biggest population that agree with me think in the way of it is a terrible thing to do. This is the reason for me asking for the population of people that actively support euthanasia in the states where euthanasia isn't legal. If the general population of a state is against it then it would pretty hard to shift their views of the matter. People are given the right to their life, however a huge population doesn't agree with it based on personal view and not the fact (that some say) it is the one true way to relieve pain and suffering. This population in a large majority in some states. At best I can see a select few states added to the handful there is now that have euthanasia legal. Everything that is legal/illegal in the country will forever have a group of people that will be against/for it. This will bring protests and plenty of debates. Who knows what the general opinion will be in 10 years.
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

Like almost all medical procedures, all doctors would have the option to disagree and choose whether or not to go through with euthanizing someone. It is no different than any other medical process that is considered risky, or whatever else, and should be treated as such. I can't really say specifically if legalizing euthanasia would produce specialized doctors, but I can't imagine that it would. All doctors, regardless of specialty, are well versed in giving someone medication intravenously, which is how modern euthanasia is done, so there wouldn't necessarily be a need for a specialist to actually go through with the procedure. I also don't have specific regulations for every particular scenario that could possibly drive someone to agree to be euthanized; however, my previous comments seem to be the most important. Declaring mental competence, patients of age 18, terminal diagnosis, and the procedure performed by a medical doctor seems to cover the main arguments for euthanasia being illegal. In closing, as people living under the United States Constitution, are implicitly given the right to death, regardless of how it occurs. That said, choosing to die on one's own terms should be treated as a liberty and be an option for those that are sick, elderly, or incapable of continuing life for whatever reason.
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

It sounds like the doctors of America label euthanasia as the one true procedure to solve suffering for patients with terminal illnesses. Yeah? From here I guess its just a question of how would this work as a legal procedure? Really it is personal choice for a person to say they want this to end their suffering, but can a doctor say they will not do the procedure because they do not agree with it? In the law where euthanasia is legal, are doctors required to administer the injection to a terminally ill patient in the case where they chose to end their suffering no matter what the doctors personal view of the matter is? As you mentioned, there was a doctor that offered euthanasia to patients that are eligible to receive it because of their thermal illness. Would making euthanasia legal produce doctors that specialize in euthanasia? Just have a medical complex that has a place where patients walk in but don't walk out? I know that seems dark, but it is pretty much what would happen. What other regulations would there need to be? We have agreed that there needs to be regulations. How far in an illness would someone need to be to be eligible for euthanasia? I'm sure just anyone can't go straight from the doctor that gave them a time frame to live to a place t hat offers euthanasia and take that path. A patient should be at a very late stage in an illness where they are literally incapable to do basic tasks that are needed to live like the guy you mentioned that would choke to death on his saliva and constantly felt pain.
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

The process of euthanizing a person is almost identical to the process of euthanizing an animal or pet. In both situations, the patient is put to sleep, then given a drug that quickly stops the heart, causing no suffering at all. Do you consider the way we put down sick and elderly animals that are suffering inhumane? If not, why is does it suddenly become inhumane to do the same thing to humans? I can't speak for others, necessarily, but as I mentioned, euthanasia is a very last-resort procedure. Most people will do whatever they can, and try everything that they can, and only after all other options have been exhausted, will they choose to end it on their own terms. A man named Jack Kevorkian was one of the few doctors that actively offered euthanasia to certain patients. He created a video that documented a patient of his that had Lou Gehrig's Disease that had reached out to him for his services. During the video, he explained that the man was constantly in pain as the paralysis took over his body, but the thing that he was terrified of most was slowly choking to death on his saliva, and not being able to do anything about it. Dr. Kevorkian then interviewed the man's family members, and though they were visibly upset, they were supportive of the man's decision. This is just one example of someone that can no longer watch themselves die, and would rather choose a painless way out. I definitely agree that rules and regulations would be necessary, but it shouldn't be banned altogether. It should be preformed by a medical doctor, and applicable patients would need to be over the age of 18, and diagnosed with a terminal illness. Patients should also have to go through a psych exam to prove that they are making a coherent decision.
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

I would say it is inhumane just for the fact that it is controllable, meaning a patients life is in the hands of the doctor administering the means of death. Death out of a persons control, while tragic, is more accepting that just taking an injection from someone and their life ending. To watch a person die is terrible. Families get a front row seat in some cases when a loves one is euthanized. Suffering is terrible, however it seems bad enough to give someone a set time where their life would end. Doctors give patients a window of how long they may have left to live after a diagnosis and it should be left to the current medical treatments to prolong a persons life before they die from their illness rather than an outside source just ending it abruptly. I understand that our medical advancements can only do so much and there isn't a guarantee that some diseases will have a cure, however to have a person be told "you have no hope in surviving this disease and we have a way to end your life without you feeling it." How many people would take this option without thinking twice? I can understand families saying goodbyes before a persons death. At some point it must be different when a person takes the injection without thinking might relate to suicidal thoughts. Growing on my last though in the previous paragraph, is euthanasia only limited to people with a terminal illness? With what you said in regards to people having the right to their own life, can just anyone go into a hospital and say "I want you to end my life" and the doctor would comply and do what they say? Suicide is not something that should be readily available to just anyone. How would they regulate euthanasia? Only available to those who are terminally ill? Is there an age limit to who can be euthanized in the states that have it legal, and would there be a national age limit for it?
Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly

Euthanasia may be considered assisted suicide from a medical point of view, but I have to disagree about it being inhumane - it actually seems like one of the most humane ways to end a person's life. Instead of years of physical and mental suffering, people can go out painlessly, on their own terms. Why does that seem inhumane? To your second point, yes, there are other ways to relieve a person's pain and suffering. Medically prescribed drugs can certainly help in some cases, but our medical advancements have only brought us so far. Doctors cannot guarantee that a patient diagnosed with cancer will be cured, or that someone with Lou Gehrig's Disease will recover from slow, total-body paralysis. In the cases where medical advancement is no longer helpful, if euthanasia was legal, these patients could choose not to suffer a slow and painful death, but rather a quick, painless one. And the answers to your questions: 1. Euthanasia is never the only option, but as I mentioned in my opening comments, the right to death is as much given to us in the United States Constitution as the right to life, and should at least be a legal option. 2. In all cases, Euthanasia is a last resort. 3. I am not sure what population of people openly support euthanasia.
Mathematics is a human invention.

Mathematics itself is a system of quantification known collectively as how humans associate the concept of quantity and its variability. I assert that mathematics is a standardized medium used as the communicative anc comprehensive foundation of natural sciences and the observation thereof. Humans, like any other sentient lifeform, have their own set methods of interaction with varied phenomena in the natural world, restricted only by our senses and ability of perception. It is indeed true that the existence and behaviour of quantities are undoubtedly real and observable. I do not disagree with the claim that mathematics exists and is heavily integrated into our understanding of the universe, its laws, and the sciences. Regardless, it does not change the fact that mathematics is a uniquely human system of observing and identifying the recurring changes and properties of quantity.The numerical system, an abstract medium of communication with numbers as the foundation of communicative component of mathematics. Numbers allow for the identification of unlimited variations of quantity. Alongside this, the fundamental properties of quantity (e.g. less than, greater than, addition, subtractiion, mulitplication, division, etc.). Numbers themselves are abstract applications used to standardize the expression of quantity in a communicable form. Since it is a human invention, nobody can truly prove or disprove of it's existence (regardless of it's applicability). Mathematics is built on of conejctures, postulations, human logic/reasoning, and as a consequence -- mathematical proof based on observation. As such, there can be no valid way of obtaining empirical and rigorous proof for axiomatic concepts, which is due to the fact that observations are based on numerical units, which have no real objective basis other than estimation (I assert that no two things are ever the exact same as math suggests). The logic behind math is undisprovable, as it is self-evident: "what is one?", "why does one plus one equal two?". It was a system made for humans, and it just so happens to work because it developed both into a language and a tool for observations based on scientific methods. As such, is fully integrated into our current understanding of the universe everything empirical in sciences and therefore aren't mathematically disputable unless there was a fallacy or human error.I will claim that the system of quantification was discovered through recurring patterns and trends of change, only to be consolidated and standardized into what we humans know and accept as the self-evident system of mathematics. Observations of change in quantity can be made by any organism with the sufficient capacity for sense perception and comprehension, yet this does not mean they are applying mathematics. It's simply an observation of change in quantity. I would like my opponent to address any disagreements with my statements above and offer their own answers/solutions/counterstatements.
Mathematics is a human invention.

For mathematics to be a human invention, it would have had to not exist before its creation. I believe mathematics was a discovery- humans did not invent this system, merely they discovered it throughout the natural world and figured out how to interpret it in an understandable context. I will cite a bit of Platonic Theory. In this case, Plato argued that math is a discoverable system that underlines the structure of the universe. In other words, the universe contains mathematics at its core. Mathematics is the infrastructure of science that explains chemical, biological, and physical phenomenon. It exists and had existed independent of human intervention before it was interpreted by us. It will continue to remain independent of human input even after we all pass. We cannot change the fundamental laws of physics or nature -- these have been set in stone due to forces outside of our control. I would like my opponent to address how humans could have invented a system that lies as the foundation of the sciences and the way our ecosystem proceeds. How could modern humans, who did not come into existence until 200,000 years ago, have established the basis for these sciences?
was Jesus really white and other misdemeanors

Indeed it doesn't, but his message of love and peace should be heeded regardless of colour shouldn't it? However, we both know that people aren't quite so perfect, and that many white people find it easier to relate to other white people. So if the Church finds that they can better the world, even ever so slightly, by portraying Jesus as white, why should they not? St John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God." That would suggest, to me at least, that God has been since the beginning of time. Also, the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega" appears several times in Revelations. As you probably know, alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Classical Greek alphabet respectively. So God is both the beginning and the end? I would say that this supports the idea that God has been since the beginning of time. Eden could be many places in the Middle East. As the events of Eden take place thousands of years ago, Eden could be much changed, perhaps now dry and arid. Eden could even just be a metaphor for a happier time and place, one filled with naive innocence, as opposed to the cynical world of today. There has been speculation that much of the Bible was intended to be taken as allegory and metaphor, not literally.
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

I would like to open by thanking T.M. Hustler for providing me with this opportunity to debate the topic of presidential ranking. Good Luck! I will note that Pro has accepted the greater burden in this debate. He is making the claim that he can find five presidents that were worse than George W. Bush and support why they were worse. I contend that he cannot. In order to win this debate, Pro will need to demonstrate that there are at least five (5) presidents who were worse, on balance, than Ge. Bush. For Con to win this debate, Con will need to demonstrate that Pro cannot show there to be five (5) worse presidents. ======= Pro has asked me to include some of the reasons why Bush is among the five worst presidents. I will enumerate them below: The Bush Administration is responsible for the unpopular War in Iraq. The war was initiated on false pretenses (whether everyone knew them to be false or not). His administration not only allowed torture, but attempted to justify it as well. His administration presided over the worst financial collapse, reportedly, since the Great Depression. His administration failed to quickly and decisively handle the situation in Louisiana (and New Orleans) during Hurricane Katrina. His administration suspended Habeas Corpus (Military Commissions Act of 2006). His administration passed the Patriot Act, some portions of which have been condemned as violations of constitutional rights. Wire Tapping of U.S. citizens. A disastrous foreign policy (specifically, the refusal to negotiate with belligerent nations). I reserve the right to include more reasons in later rounds, should the need arise. I eagerly await the response from my opponent.
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

to start I will clarify my position and the argument for me to claim victory in this debate I must show that there have been 5 worse presidents. to do this I must show that there presidencies have had a greater detrimental effect on the society. con. first round they will give reasons why G.W.B was the worst president ever. pro.2nd round I will refute and explain why other presidents were worse.
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

I have already refuted several of the claims made against Bush showing that will he was not a good president his misconduct does not rise to the level of Johnson's impeachment, or his blatant racism. further more the bush presidency never had the amount of abuse power for financial gain than the Harding administration. so to this point I believe that I have shown there are at least 4 previous presidents that were worse than Bush. at this point I was going to mention Ulysses s Grant as a 5th but seeing as my opponent has not chance to refute this I will just give the link to the Wikipedia page that describes his scandals I believe once you have read this you will see that I have name 5 presidents that were worse than GWB http://en.wikipedia.org...
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

Given the time of day (4:45 am EST) and the amount of time between rounds (3 hours), it is highly unlikely that I will be responding in the final round of debate. Since most debates here are three rounds anyway, I ask that the reader does not punish me merely for missing the last round. I further ask that the reader and my opponent consider the debate over when Pro posts his next round. Thank you in advance. I will now address the presidents selected by Pro as worse than Bush. ====== Buchanan ====== I concede that Buchanan can be consider among the five worst presidents. ====== Johnson ====== The fact that congress overrode Johnson's veto of the first Civil Rights Bill does not prove that he deserves a place among the five worst presidents. Many presidents have had vetos overridden and do not qualify as bad presidents. Also, to counter Pro's only other argument relating to Johnson: presiding over a nation that is divided along partisan (or even racial) lines does not prove he was a bad president. Pro has not demonstrated a valid reason why Johnson belongs on a list of five worst presidents. ====== Nixon ====== I have already conceded that Nixon can be considered among the worst five presidents. ====== Harding ====== I admit that the Harding Administration has proven to be among the most corrupt. However, Pro has not demonstrated how this corruption has led to long-term or even a significant negative balance. Sure, the short two years of this administration was marked by corruption - but it was not marked by torture, illegal wire-tapping, war under false pretenses, violations of constitutional rights, and economic collapse. --------------------- ====== Conclusion ====== My opponent has thus far failed to meet his burden. He has only been able to produce valid and relevant reasons for two presidents who can be listed among the five (5) worst presidents in U.S. history. In order to win this debate he will need to either introduce or defend the inclusion of at least three (3) more, and support the claim that their administration was worse than that of George W. Bush. In order to do that, he will need to show why they were worse than state-sponsored torture, illegal wire-tapping, an unpopular war that began under false pretenses, violations of constitutional rights, and economic collapse. I would like to close by thanking my opponent for this debate. If he would like to debate the same topic again with longer rounds, I would be more than happy to oblige. Good Night, and Good Luck.
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

===== Modern Morality ===== One major problem with Pro's second round of debate is that he is looking on history with the moral compass of the modern world. When ranking presidents, one must take the context of the time into account. For instance, James Buchanan cannot be deducted points, as Pro does in his second round, for advocating slavery in a time when slavery was the norm. Nor can Andrew Johnson be blamed for being a racist and promoting segregation in a time of deep racial enmity. Because Pro bases his argument for these two presidents (Buchanan and Johnson) on modern morality, his argument is negated. ===== Richard Nixon ===== Richard Nixon certainly deserves consideration in the top five worst presidents. However, given the few reasons supplied by Pro compared (and the severity of said reasons), Ge. W. Bush ranks worse. The both engaged in illegal (and questionable) wiretapping of U. S. citizens. However, torture, leading the nation into a war on false pretenses, economic collapse, and suspension of constitutional rights (among others) ranks worse than the coruption that characterized the Nixon Administration. The former affects foreign policy, our standing in the world, and domestic stability; the latter only affects domestic trust of the political system. ===== Conclusion ===== Pro has thus far failed to meet his burden to introduce five (5) presidents that rank worse, on balance, than George W. Bush. He failed to produce relevant reasons why Buchanan and Johnson were worse. He also failed to provide enough support for his claim that Nixon was worse.