BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthansia Should Be Legalised

First off, we focus on the term "killing," and every time we hear it, negativity would always fill our minds. Nobody would want to see anyone get killed, except maybe for sadists. Generally, nobody wants to get killed and nobody should want to kill"and nobody should kill. I believe that killing is very much frowned upon in most societies. What is this so-called "mercy killing"? Well, basically, it"s still killing, but out of mercy. Thanks, Captain Obvious. The thing is, the main method of mercy killing is ending one"s life. Imagine getting high grades in school"yet your method for doing so is bribing your teacher. And that"s Machiavellian; which means by our creed and our morals, we cannot simply accept that sort of mindset. Is killing ever justifiable? Is there really any way to justify putting someone's life to an end? If Euthanasia is legalised, killing will become much more broad and it will be difficult for the law to enforce the law properly and justly Legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will result in what is commonly referred to as the "slippery slope" effect. Some of those in favour of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia with the appropriate safeguards oppose the idea of non-voluntary euthanasia being permitted. Yet, if voluntary euthanasia is legalised others in favour of non-voluntary euthanasia would argue that non-voluntary euthanasia should also be permissible. After all if one form is allowed than why not the other? Why should patients who cannot expressly request euthanasia be discriminated against? Why should their right to end their life be taken away because they cannot communicate as opposed to their fellow human beings who can ask for death? Now for a more religious stance: Euthanasia is against the word and will of God Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life Suffering may have value
Euthansia Should Be Legalised

This is my argument against the legislation of legalising euthanasia: 1.Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life 2.Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others 3.Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable 4.Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests 5.Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient 6. If euthanasia is legalised, then drugs and murder should be legalised too. 7. The patient may have a chance of recovery 8. Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
Euthansia Should Be Legalised

Euthanasia: The practice of intentionally ending a life for the purposes of relieving suffering. This differs from Mercy Killing, which is done at times without the consent of the person who is to die. I"m arguing from the standpoint of Euthanasia, in which the patient/person who is going to die is aware of and consents to their treatment. Reasons for this belief: I am arguing that the practice of killing someone with their knowledge and consent should be legal. It is in my opinion that if someone is in enough pain that they request to be put out of it, then it should be legal for them to seek and receive that painless end. If this practice was legal, I believe that there should be restrictions. It would not be a requirement in all cases of extreme suffering, nor would it be acceptable to allow someone who is mentally unable to decide what treatment is beneficial to them to make the decision to end their own suffering. An example of when this would be an acceptable option would be when a given patient was going to die, without question, but would be waiting for weeks or months to end their suffering in a natural , painful way. In such a case, I believe that it is not only a good option to give, but that it is more ethical to allow them the choice to die than to force them to live out their life"s end in pain and suffering.
westernization of society

In this debate, I will prove that some societies could use more westernization, or that other cultures are barbaric or wrong. Rebuttals: "westernization of society is bad for any societyit causes a lot of ill effects as well as alters the true values and ideals of a society" -What are these ill effects? Con also needs to explain how altering the true values and ideals is bad. In this, I will show how altering those values can be good. First, I will start with Brazil. 65% of Brazilians believe rape is justified if a woman is scantily clad. That is abhorrent. Rape has many negative effects [1] and is illegal because of that. That part of Brazil's culture could definitely use Westernization. Next, I will focus on African and Asian countries. In Nigeria, there are many barbaric practices. Here is a short list: 1) Female Genital Mutilation- For religion 2) Horrible treatment of widows- They lose all their possessions 3) Witch hunts- People assault and murder people who they think are witches, including kids 4) Slavery- Women are sold to be prostitutes and kids are sold to work at farms. 5) Sacrifices- People are killed to appease Gods [2] In India, people decided to rewrite rape laws to make it imposdible for men to be raped [3]. They also still mistreat the "untouchables", the people below the caste system [4]. In North Korea, the people have zero rights or freedoms, and public beheadings occur [6]. Many countries still haven't given gay people equal rights. In China, the government strictly controls the people's rights. In South Africa, people leave babies out to die [6] Several tribes are cannibals [7] Over 15 million Indians and Chinese are enslaved. [8] Indian and Pakistani children are forced to be married. [9] The Chinese have a competition where dogs are slaughtered and sold. [10] Public beheadings are common in the Middle East [5]. Stoning is a method of execution for people who had sex when they were unmarried. [11] Atheists are considered terrorists by Saudi Arabia [12] Christians are beheaded by ISIS [13] In general, there are tons of horrible practices and cultures that exist. Westernization is not a bad thing in these circumstances, because the culture is barbaric and morally wrong. So altering part of their culture would be a good thing, as this list includes things that are discriminatory, barbaric, inmoral, and cause innocent people to die. Good luck! Sources: [1] . http://hotair.com... [2] . http://www.nairaland.com... [4] . http://time.com... [3] . https://toysoldier.wordpress.com... [5-11] . http://www.littlebudha.com... [12] . http://www.independent.co.uk... [13] . http://ijr.com...
The Xbox 360 is a better console than the Nintendo Wii.

That's ok, I understand. In your analogy with the apartment and the mansion you forgot to mention the other half to owning the mansion... The price. Basically I'm advocating that the 360's price is steep compared to the Wii so is it really worth it to get that mansion if you can live happily with the apartment? What I am saying about the 360 coming with those couple of games is that the two you get are poorly chosen and I know that I, for one, and many of my friends would never use these games, making them an unnecessary cost that is avoided with the Wii. For example, when I got my 360 for Christmas last year it came with two games that I don't think I've played to date. Ok well so far we haven't been arguing whether the 360 is a better console for the manufacturers so I don't see how this has any importance. If I could buy a console and one or two games and still not get bored of them I don't see why that is a bad thing for me, I spend less money and am still amused. So you say that the Wii is a party system. I would agree and also say that the 360 is a console that you play alone in your house with random people on XBL, to me the system that sounds better here is the Wii because you're playing with your real friends and they are actually there, you're not talking to them through a little headset. To this I would argue that what you're advocating is like having a gift card to a specific store for a specific product (the Xbox DVD Player) rather than having open cash. Which one is better? The cash, of course, because it allows you more freedom (the money you save on a Wii). If I don't want to buy the 360's DVD Player then I could choose what else to buy from anywhere. This is true, you can customize some aspects on the 360 that on the Wii you can't, but all of these things that you can are really trivial and meaningless. Thank You for my first debate on this website, that was fun :)
The Xbox 360 is a better console than the Nintendo Wii.

Thanks for the reply. When I used the term "better", I meant it is a superior console to the Wii. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused due to my choice of words. Indeed, the Wii IS a cheaper console, but you get what you pay for. And the Wii does come with Wii sports, but select versions of the Xbox comes with Forza 2 and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance. Your second point is somewhat undebatable, the Wii does fight obesity, but at the same time, it tires gamers out, and further gaming can be unpleasant. It is untrue that the Xbox cannot appeal to a wide age gap, the Xbox has games like Viva Pinata, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, and so on. The Xbox has the Ability to appeal to a wider spectrum of gamers, because the Wii has a reputation for being a "Kiddie System." (Back to the "You get what you pay for" argument I used previously. The Xbox 360's games cost typically 10 Dollars more, but games for the Xbox usually have an option to play on Xbox Live, have better graphics and longer game play times. As seen with the PS3, you may have a free online service, but it is sub par to a subscription service. This is an invalid point though, because the Wii's Wi-Fi abilities are yet to be seen, so we cannot debate the functionality of it just yet. The graphics for the Xbox have more detail, seen in such games as Splinter Cell, and Far Cry. Nintendo does good on beloved characters graphics wise because Nintendo's most famous characters have a very colorful setting, except The Legend Of Zelda and Metroid. The Xbox 360 has a DVD player built in, but it's not High Definition, you buy an addon for that, but why should you have to buy 2 separate products that can do what the Xbox can with just one. The Xbox 360 does have many options for Customization. Custom faceplates, third party fans and cords, the ability to change the dashboard screens, the theme of the Xbox Guide, the Xbox comes in two different colors, stands and a plethora of controller accessories. I believe I have responded to my opponents claims, and disproven them in a truthful matter. (And on a side note, I would like to know which next generation consoles my foe owns, I own all 3) Good luck in the next round!
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

You don't understand the point of my argument. Yes, it can be moral to kill those you suspect might continue to commit crimes, but only in the event that there is no other possible solution. While his actions are immoral, this debate is not about the concept of abortion, it is about whether or not the murder of a criminal is justifiable. In this case, no, it is not. Tiller could have been given life instead (imprisonment) and while you could argue that this uses state funds, it is the moral option. The most practical option is to kill every single criminal, unemployed or homeless person in the world, but you must of course agree that this is definitely the most immoral option. This is why Tiller should have been interned instead of killed. Awaiting your response, Duncan
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

we dont just kill criminals for any old crime, that's why we dont kill all criminals. we kill in self defense, though, everyone agrees. i didnt post a link to the two year old hypothetical... it's in the initial round. people are killing two year olds, it's legal to kill one year olds but not two year olds. most would kill to save ones and twos... but isn't it in no way unjusitifiable to kill in self defensse of the two year olds? how is this different than killing viable babies for trivial purposes illegally? we dont rehabilititate when we kill in self defense. we have to kill or be killed, it's just a fact of life. if there was a mroe immediate or sure way to get him in jail or rehab or stoping abortion then fine we dont have to kill him. but as is, he's going to keep doing it indefinitely. please address the two year old hypothetical. if you use the mother's soverignty of her body, how is she not responsibe for her pregnancy at least some, and how not her fault she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer? even the law recognizes no abostulte right to abort.
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

Dairygirl, the reason that I cannot address the two year old hypothetical is because it is, a two year old hypothetical. The website you have provided no longer shows the hypothetical, so you will have to simply post it along with your next reply. Now, I brought up the honor system because I had initially appeared to me that you simply wanted Tiller dead because he was a murderer. I point out that you state in the title that he should have been shot, not executed. In countries with a death penalty, which I am not in support of, the sentence is usually done with an electric chair or lethal injection, at least with the injection it is less painful. From this desire for a firing squad to deliver painful retaliation, combined with your use of capital letters (and the fact that it is just your last argument again) I deduced that you are emotionally involved with this debate, understandable, and every debater falls victim to it, but please do try to review your work in a professional manner. Am I to guess that you refer to the idea of killing one to save another as your hypothesis? In that case, true, killing one who may kill others is morally defensible, but only in the event that you are unable to simply prevent the crime occurring in the first place. By your logic, why don't we just not have police patrols, wait for criminals to show up, catch them on camera and then track them down and kill them? The answer is that you have not eliminated the source of the problem, only one of the "henchmen" so to speak. If you didn't already know, prison has three functions: One: As a form of punishment for criminals. The most obvious function. Two: To prevent the criminal committing further crimes. Essentially "keeping them off the streets", this is to ensure the safety of the public. Three: To rehabilitate the criminal. Eventually, the criminal will finish their sentence and return to society. Rehabilitation serves to ensure that the criminal understands what was morally and legally wrong with their actions, and that they will no longer commit those actions, now reformed. Your reasoning does fill the first two requirements, but completely removes the third as a possibility. Tiller could have been arrested and then served a sentence for his actions, the most morally justifiable course. Your hypothesis ignores that prevention is better than cure, and I suggest that you look for the real source of the problem instead of forming your own vigilantee solution. (even Batman doesn't kill) Awaiting your response (please excuse my poor sense of humour), Duncan
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

i notice that you did not respond to the very first sentence of my debate request, to address the two year old hypothetical. it would be very informing of the morality of tiller and abortion. you complain that ive debated this many times, but i started these new debates so people would focus on that instead of ignoring it as they always do... wanted to focus our energy more squarely on that. this wouldn't be an 'eye for an eye' killing. that is about revenge for the sake of revenge. this is about preventing more murders, what i'm arguing, not eye for an eye. basic self defense. this is how the sactity of life is very much defended. would any be prolife if they thought it the right thing to do to just sit by while two year olds are shot? again, you need to address this hypothetical for your points to mean much of anything. (and the whole honor bound to assisinate me thing is a bit trite, but if you follow that logic, dont you think the death of thousands of babies, illegal abortions of viable babies for trivial reasons, cries out for honor? only in this case, it's not an eye for an eye honor killing. you seem to follow that logic more than me, apparently./) i dont see how you say this is all emotional appeal. it's all based on morality, philosophy, and debate. notice it's all cerebral what i wrote and based on reason, not a short diatrible about taking out the baby killer blah blah blah.
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

Well, initially I was unsure of this argument as the website provided did not give the story mentioned in the title. I then realized that the pro side has had this argument before and lost each time. I will make reference to the previous speech, but still add my own spin on it. The debate topic ideally should be on the ethical controversy surrounding abortion, but you have instead decided to demand the death of someone in an "eye for an eye" manner. And considering the fact that you have repeated you argument, this seems to be more of an emotional rant than a debate of reason. I recommend that you rationally reconsider your argument and instead of calling for the outright murder of another human being, even a criminal at that, which descends into a barbaric justice system that was abolished at least a thousand years ago. I will assume your stance is pro life, as you speak with such contempt for abortion and call for other pro lifers to agree, but is that is the case, then you should be considering the "sanctity of life" which pro lifers claim to defend. Your hypothetical hypocrisy, and desire to actually murder murderers makes you a murderer, which Tiller's next of kin would be honor bound to answer with your assassination. I must say, dairy girl, that you have a primitive and emotional approach to this argument, and I would consider thinking on that before you just copy and paste what you wrote last time, which if you do, I will answer by using AvalonXQ's skillful rebuttal against. Awaiting your response, Duncan
Social Media helps teenagers.

Just because you have met nearly everyone, doesn't mean everyone has. It's still a very dangerous platform. People could pose as said friends. I, myself, have encountered several false profiles. It's not justified. But it happens. There are people who only care about looks. It could put them in dangerous positions. I mean...for crying out loud. My mom and I moved from Arkansas to Florida for her boyfriend. (who turned out to be fake...go figure)People can still be there for you and be in a different state. My best friend lives in Missouri and I saved her life from my frigging bedroom. And it's still a possibility. Everyone has been through trials in life. Some are more successful than others. But it still affects people, whether positive or negative. I'm not saying I'm gonna fly people from Australia to my wedding either. Believe me...But it wouldn't kill for you to know that they support you. (Again, I saved my best friend's life from my bedroom...!) You don't have to live in the same state to support you.Some people use social media as a way to manage business, so it may not be that easy. But yes you can control certain notifications. I will admit that much...So, if your parents tell you everyday that you're an amazing singer or artist, you won't believe them? Words can only roll off for so long. If you hear it from 5 people a day, everyday, you're gonna start to think, "Oh hey, maybe this is true.." One thing leads to another, and next thing you know, they're convinced of it.I stand by the point that if you don't instigate it, you shouldn't have to log off. It's not your fault. The victim shouldn't be isolated because some jerk decided to talk crap or start a rumor.The platforms are made for keeping in touch. Not circulating rumors or inappropriate pictures/comments. NEWSFLASH: It happens! Some people just don't care if they get into trouble. All they care about is making themselves feel superior.Your point kind of does relate to religion. 10th commandment: You shall not covet. Correct me if I'm wrong? Jealousy isn't a 'bad thing.' It's human nature. Even the most innocent children get jealous. The most mature adults slip up and get jealous. It happens to everyone. If he's jealous, it makes him human. It's awfully hypocritical to say no one likes jealousy when IT HAPPENS. But...if it doesn't happen to you, then what would you do if you saw your girlfriend with another guy? Get mad? Anger is a sin.
Social Media helps teenagers.

Okay? So those people stay updated. But how many have you met? I know several people who add friends just because they're cute or their pictures are good. It's too easy to hide behind a screen. And you just proved my point. If they wouldn't talk to you if it weren't for social media, then they aren't a friend. It's called knowing who will really be there for you. What if social media could prevent that kid from getting slammed into a locker. Plus, you still get notifications if you log off. Whether by email, or text.The cases that aren't reported? That's the thing. We don't know. Who says they didn't get manic depression from being put down. If you hear something enough, you believe it. And if they have been through trauma that lowered their self esteem, they may not be able to help if it gets to them. But they shouldn't be the one who has to log off because of someone else's stupidity. There's a thing called the terms and agreements that you have to agree to. If you break that, the victim shouldn't be the one punished.I understand you're a Christian. You believe in some things others don't. Others may not see jealousy as anything bad. But even if you are a religious person, flesh has a tendency to win sometimes. (Flesh being human nature) We don't know what's going on in the person's head who sees said hot guy with a job, car, and girlfriend. Said avatar is an old picture from when I was like...15? I'm not "wrapped up" in it. I haven't been on it in 9months. This is the closest thing to social media I've been on since January.