BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Euthanasia may be similar to suicide, BUT NOT THE SAME.Well we talk of euthanasia and not suicide. As far as your question goes, you talk of suicide, while the motion is euthanasia. Euthanasia is executed, when patients are in the last stage of their life, as I said, cannot walk, talk, take for example in coma, we often pray that may the patient pass away, so that he is relieved of his pains, in this the question of euthanasia comes up; except for being in a coma, the patient's agreement is required.Well, that you talk of a 20 year old widow:1. She's no patient.2. Her husband was not her whole world or happiness.3. She is in mental pain and not physical. This pain will gradually decrease with the passage of time.4. She is not in a condition where her death can come in any moment 5. No legal body will grant her the permission for euthanasia.Well if she wants to die, she has to commit suicide, which is according to me a very immoral way of ending one's life, and that too painfully.
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Please read this definition of suicide provided by Merriam-Webster:1. the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue livingThis sounds similar to the definition of euthanasia. You may not be killing yourself, but you are giving consent to be killed. This is the same thing in my mind. Also, the pain might be unbearable - but you don't want to continue living because of the pain. According to Merriam-Webster, this is considered suicide because you don't desire to keep living. Also, those that commit suicide are under some sort of pain they don't want to experience - whether it be physical, mental, finical, spiritual, etc. Basically, suicide is committed by those who don't want to live anymore because of some sort of pain. How is this different from an elderly person who doesn't want to undergo pain and participates in euthanasia? It is not. Should we give a 20-year old widow the option of euthanasia because she is going through a pain that it seems she'll never recover?
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Time for the questions in rebuttal, 1500 characters: (Answers in next round)"Remember, terminal means that it seems as though a person will die. It isn't 100%." Well if it was 100% then there was no need of voluntary euthanasia. Don't compare suicide to euthanasia. Suicide committed when the person is in healthy condition, euthanasia, when the person cannot stand the pain he is undergoing, may be for years. Such a decision is taken for releasing the strain on financial conditions and releasing the excruciating emotional and physical pain of the patient. It is rare and not executed in every alternate case. In most cases it leaves the patient and the family content, for ultimately the patient experiences no pain.Suppose you are the patient, say suffering from entire mind and body paralysis, would rather live inert or choose to die?Thank you.Post your question in this round and answer my question in the next round.
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Doctors argue quite differently. They say that is nearly impossible to predict the life expectancy of any patient. It may seem like they'll never recover; however, many doctors argue that some patients can live for years and can recover from terminal illness. Remember, terminal means that it seems as though a person will die. It isn't 100%. Killing yourself before the chance at recovery would be called suicide. "An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse." This is pulled off an anti-euthanasia website: http://www.euthanasia.com... This website outlines my argument perfectly.
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

Hello Jvava,I stand against the motion before us. A person may be is terminally ill, doctors say that there is no hope for him the patient wishes for death, would you still lock him up behind bars and chains of mortality ; denying him the peace and happiness. Would you rather see a person suffer as per as your jealous wishes than do what he desires to and give him eternal happiness? Euthanasia is carried out with complete consent from the patient. If one is sick, one can be attacked severely by more physical and emotional pain. One may think "No one can take a life, not even the state"; a very strong point indeed. No, but a person indeed has all rights over his own life; and an euthanasia is always certified by doctors. We can say that euthanasia is ending a painful life in a painless way. Euthanasia should not be banned, banning euthanasia suggests that the right to life is being taken away from a citizen. It is unfair and immoral. Thank you.
Voluntary Euthanasia should be banned. Argue.

What is euthanasia:Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Voluntary Euthanasia: refers to the practice of ending one's own life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. Legal procedures have to be undergone in such cases, and these are only allowed in some 5 or 6 countries only. Round 1: Agreement to rules only Round 2: Debate (max of 1500 words) Round 3: Rebuttle Round 4: Answer to rebuttle(in 1000 words max)
Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse

I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

'Since states and governors have no ability to declare war it would be counter productive for states to possess nuclear weapons and would only create tension between the federal government and state governments.' This claim is irrelevant to the resolution, as it only discusses the holding of Nuclear Weapons ONLY. It never said we had to use them, let me make that clear for the voters, before the debate is finished. The resolution only entails, ignore what my opponent said, "The possession" of Nuclear Weapons. We are not obligated to use them, simply hold them. Even if we can't use them under only the state, it's illogical as to how only the capitol, or whichever place can hold the Nuclear Weapons. They could hold them, and use them under the country's foreign policy if it be necessary. 'The ability to declare war resides with the congress and the ability to sign international treaties rests solely with the President of the United States and the Senate.' My opponent only discusses the U.S.A., so there is a possibility the other countries with states don't have only the congress handle foreign policy. For, if they can all the things my opponent agreed to, why can't they act out their own foreign policy, yet under orders? 'If a state were to come into possession of a nuclear weapon, declare war, and use said weapon it would be a violation of the tenth amendment and could easily lead to a civil war of sorts.' I REPEAT, non-explicit for other countries. Tenth Amendment? That only covers the U.S.A. states. And I REPEAT again: it makes no sense as to how one state holds all the Nuclear Weapons and the other states none. The States can follow foreign policy, and hold them until necessary attack with them is needed. 'I ask my opponent to clarify this statement in the next wrong as it does not seem to make sense.' If a country attacks a state, it's an enemy of the targeted country, so utilizing Nuclear Weapons shouldn't cause a Civil War, nor tensions inside the country. It's an enemy of the country, so there is no reason for a Civil War. I'll end my side with a Summary: * The word "possession" should be used mostly when deciding this round. Not "use." * There is no plausible issue worth having a civil war, or any inner-fighting about "possessing" a Nuclear Weapon. They (U.S.A.) use it under the American Federal Government's orders. So there's no clear reason why possession is bad; most of my opponent's arguments were meaningless. The Federal Government would control the Nuclear Weapons, and the states would hold them. * And I urge a Negative vote.
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

In this round I will attempt to interrupt and disprove the arguments my opponent made previously in R2. "A division of power in the states, leaves all with separate voting power in the Election for President of the United States. Voting booths for power inside each state lay there for similar seats of power, such as Governor, or even Mayor?" It is true that governors and mayor are representatives of the executive branch in their level of government. It is also true that governors have similar powers to that of the president such as: the ability to veto legislation, the ability to pardon, the power to appoint officials and budgetary control.[1] However governors do not have the ability to create foreign policy. The ability to declare war resides with the congress and the ability to sign international treaties rests solely with the President of the United States and the Senate.[2][3] Since states and governors have no ability to declare war it would be counter productive for states to possess nuclear weapons and would only create tension between the federal government and state governments. If a state were to come into possession of a nuclear weapon, declare war, and use said weapon it would be a violation of the tenth amendment and could easily lead to a civil war of sorts.[4] "States ought possess these "Nuclear Weapons," which may opponent falsely labeled as WMDs." Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, and it is in no way inappropriate to label them as such. "States possess a branch of foreign policy." Incorrect. "They do their actions with approval, and have the checks and balances from the voting public. If it was an enemy of the state, it would be an enemy of the country itself, having no tensions formed between the country and state." I ask my opponent to clarify this statement in the next wrong as it does not seem to make sense. "The States are PART of the Federal Government. The Governors of the states act as the Federal Government of each state, and all others with power as "Advisers." If the choice was truly bad, the checks and balances would kick in, with people voting against the action." The federal government and state governments are separate levels of government and are not part of one another. Governors act on behalf of the executive branch in any given state, not on behalf of the federal government. Please clarify the last portion of this argument as it is not a coherent argument. I will end the round by saying this: As state governments do not have the ability to create foreign policy (such as the power to declare war and the ability to create treaties) it would be pointless for states to have possession of a nuclear weapons, and would only serve to create tension between state governments and the federal government. I would like to thank the reader at this point, and I eagerly await my opponent's response in R3. Sources: [1] http://www.smccd.net... [2] http://www.usconstitution.net... [3] http://www.ehow.com... [4] http://civilliberty.about.com...
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

State -- "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory" A division of power in the states, leaves all with separate voting power in the Election for President of the United States. Voting booths for power inside each state lay there for similar seats of power, such as Governor, or even Mayor? They are elected like Presidents, who get things approved before doing it. States ought possess these "Nuclear Weapons," which may opponent falsely labeled as WMDs. States possess a branch of foreign policy. They do their actions with approval, and have the checks and balances from the voting public. If it was an enemy of the state, it would be an enemy of the country itself, having no tensions formed between the country and state. The States are PART of the Federal Government. The Governors of the states act as the Federal Government of each state, and all others with power as "Advisers." If the choice was truly bad, the checks and balances would kick in, with people voting against the action.
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

Definitions: states- a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States of America).[1] States ought not possess nuclear weapons as it would force individual states to develop foreign policy, as they would have possession of weapons of mass destruction that are not the property of any form of federal government. Since historically foreign policy has largely been the responsibility of federal governments.[2] This would cause unnecessary tension between the two entities, and may even result in a civil war. The possession of nuclear weapons best belongs to federal governments. I thank my opponent and eagerly await his response in the next round. Sources [1] http://geography.about.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

I am going to keep this brief: My opponent's entire arguments steams from an unawareness of what the term possession means. Since he is the instigator of this debate I assumed he realized that possession meant "the act of having and controlling property."[1] It would appear however that I was wrong. The fact that the resolution states "States Ought Not POSSESS Nuclear Weapons" makes claims my opponent made in the previous round, such as, "The Federal Government would control the Nuclear Weapons, and the states would hold them" inaccurate because in order to possess something you must have both ownership and control of said property. Furthermore, my opponent has made no argument as too why state possession of nukes would be more beneficial than federal ownership or any other kind of ownership, thus failing to reach the burden of proof. I heavily urge a Pro vote. Thank You. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Slang is a symptom of decadence

Please do not use pornographic websites for references. I did not need photos to understand what you were getting across. It was completely unnecessary and inappropriate.It appears that my opponent believes in a natural, non-relative moral code, since he said "Any sane person will agree that this is indeed wrong," when referring to the tribal tradition. If that assumption is correct, then it would seem he has made the mistake of labelling the removal of such a tradition from the tribal group as a "decline". Let's assume for the argument that there is an absolute, moral code that each person has (a conscience, if you will).From that assumption, if you do something that is aligned with your conscience, then you are being moral. By being moral, you would not be in moral decline. Thus you are plateau-ing or inclining. Decadence is associated with a moral or cultural decline, which would not apply if a person is following his/her conscience.On the other hand, a relative perspective would have no ground to stand on and thus, a decline or incline could not be determined, since it is all relative.A moral decline is associated with decadence, not just any change in morals. It would seem you are making the assumption that slang is a symptom of change, not decadence. A positive decadence involves self-indulgence, which is not necessarily a good decisionFurthermore, culturally, a decline occurs when a culture abandons the direction they were taking (morally, economically, etc). According to decadence, a decline/decay must occur, but slang is not a positive or negative thing. Yes, you could say some slang words are worse than others, but it cannot be applied to slang, in general. Even if you applied your view of duality where positive and negative words are symptoms of decadence, then you still do not have evidence that "Ain't" is a symptom. Also, just because slang exists, does not mean the society has moved up or down on the cultural or moral ladder. It could just be that one slang-word gained more popularity than the previous one. There is no assurance that the change in slang has anything to do with decadence. It could just be that people born in the '80s prefer certain words that people from the '90s never use. That would be generational. A change does not mean decadence has risen up in the society.Lastly, a man could avoid all slang-use and still have a decadent-nature. If he avoids all slang, then it is not a symptom of decadence; it is a abstinence he has chosen for himself (despite having less abstinence elsewhere in his life).
Slang is a symptom of decadence

Firstly, I would like to applaud my opponent for taking a rather well founded stance. However, I would also like to point out that my opponent has failed to realize the double-sided aspect of decadence. R34;Decadence is defined by the New Oxford American dictionary as moral or cultural decline. I will give this example [1]:In some tribes such as those shown in the exhibit, girls have to get their vaginal muscles painfully altered so as to increase pleasure in during sexual intercourse. Any sane person will agree that this is indeed wrong, but looking into it critically, one finds that it perfectly matches the definition of an aspect of culture. As such, if that practice is stopped, then decadence has taken place. In such a case, decadence has occurred in a positive and constructive fashion. Valued reader and fellow debater, allow me to use my opponent's devices against him/her. My opponent argued that use of slang carries with it a fragment of creativity and it gives a sense of belonging and I agree with every word of that. It seems my opponent learnt the truth of the saying " If you can't beat them, join them" because those sentiments are in my support. Slang is linguistic decadence which promotes creativity hence it is a form of decadence which is positive. As a reminder, I am only arguing that slang is a symptom of decadence without outlining whether it is positive or negative. As a result, for any form of slang-related decadence stated I can classify it as negative or positive but still maintaining the fact that it is decadence. In addition, I shall give a further outline of how slang has led to decadence. It would be myopic to look at slang-related decadence in the context of one country hence I shall look at it within the scope of the whole world. Slang is indeed a world wide phenomenon. [2] Further information to be given in the rounds to follow. [1] [Content removed by moderator] [2] http://sbinfocanada.about.com...
Slang is a symptom of decadence

I accept the challenge and will be arguing that slang is not a "vehicle of ethical decay". In order for something to decay, it must first be in a state that could decay. If that something is already rotten or decayed, then decaying is essentially normal. Thus, the assumption is that people in society were in a non-decaying state at one point, which changed, causing the decaying state to start and for slang to appear as a symptom. As for my arguments, they will use the understanding that people were already in a decaying, ruinous state and offensive slang is a symptom of that. Note that not all slang is offensive or related to ethics directly (like "ain't") at all and some slang is used positively, as in humorous situations. According to psychology, some slang is used in groups and the ability to use that slang is encouraging and permits the person a sense of belonging (though it could be argued to alienate others). In addition, psychology supports the notion that it requires a level of creativity to speak in slang (like Shakespeare, for example). Creativity, I think you would agree, is not an undesirable trait in a person, thus you would not say someone is ethically decaying because he is creative. - http://blog.lib.umn.edu...
Slang is a symptom of decadence

My argument is that slang is a sign that moral as well as ethical values are being lost. This can be observed by the way in which some slang words have been incorporated into the English language. Preference of slang words to conventional and formal words is also evidence of my stance. Furthermore, the way in which some slang words, most of which can be found on the urban dictionary website, are linked to sensual and rather vulgar phenomena shows that the unmoral and the immoral have teamed up to fight the moral on the platform of colloquial language. In today's world, slang is a vehicle for ethical decay.