BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia should be legalised.

Euthanasia is only there so that patients have a choice. Euthanasia isn't a solution, it's a relief from pain that the patient can choose if they want to. If they don't want to be euthanized, then they won't (shouldn't) be euthanized. Euthanasia is there if you decide you want to give up. Without euthanasia, patients are unable to give up at all unless they commit suicide, which is illegal (in my country at least). I approve of struggling against painful illnesses or disabilities, but if the patient wants to die in a relatively painless way, then I think they should have that choice too. There is also the case of terminally ill people - people who are almost guaranteed to die anyway. These people may want to choose when they die. Euthanasia in this case can be seen as one rebelling against the illness. Rather than letting the illness destroy and ravage their minds and bodies, and kill them in any random moment, the patient chooses a controlled, peaceful and painless death. As well, many diseases can cause one's form to deteriorate. The end result is that they look unattractive and miserable. To prevent this, people can be euthanized before the illness does so much damage to the body. The euthanized patient will have died in a peaceful state of mind, happy and peaceful, and still looking like a normal person. Euthanasia won't stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. As far as I can tell, NOTHING, will stop innovation in pharmaceuticals. Humans are like that - we don't care if we need to torture animals, or be a bit sneaky with the law - we'll do anything to make the money that can be made. I would also like to make another point. Euthanasia can be good for the patients family and loved ones too. Instead of the patient suddenly dying without notice, the patient's loved ones will know when the death occurs and can be by the person's side when the time comes. This would probably be very beneficial for the patient's mental health. Having a controlled death can also allow one to leave the world without regrets, as they would know exactly when they would die and be able to accomplish and wrap up any unfinished business they have in the world. It's been fun debating with you, this is my first debate I've ever participated in on this site.
Euthanasia should be legalised.

There is not point in legalising a law when you have to modify it or set any demarcation between disabilities or painful disabilities. Every illness is painful but we have hopes to conquer it. Ending lives is not a solution to the problem. For instance they encountered a disease, which is not identified yet ,is painful so according to these laws euthanasia is solution? We are ending hopes here and putting an end to innovation in pharmaceuticals. Banning alcohol and smoking is another point of discussion, but banning car is surely a ban to mankind development. Apparently ,this not the case with euthanasia. Why to add one more in the list.? These Laws will prevent people from commiting suicide but encourage murders and end our hopes.
Euthanasia should be legalised.

There do exist doctors who euthanize patients without consent. However, I think it's quite safe to assume that most doctors do not want to kill their patients. Sure, a lot of people only become doctors for the money. But even in the case of these doctors, only a few of them would be willing to kill off a patient.* As far as I know, only people with painful disabilities or those who are terminally ill may be euthanized. I believe the Netherlands has some rather lax laws regarding euthanasia, which I do not agree with. To be specific, I agree that euthanasia should only be allowed for people with painful disabilities or people who are terminally ill. Even though evil doctors might try to commit murder with euthanasia, I still think it should be legalized. Just because it can be potentially used for evil doesn't mean that it should be banned. If we're going to ban euthanasia, we should ban guns too (in the case of the US). How about banning alcohol as well, that causes a lot of deaths! And smoking should be banned as well! Maybe we should ban cars as well, just to make sure nobody dies in car accidents. As you can see, many things that can cause harm are still legal. Why? Because they have the potential to be used for good. Car accidents will probably kill more people than evil doctors administering euthanasia ever will. There are also many laws preventing people who don't have terminal illnesses or painful disabilities from being euthanized. The Netherlands may be an exception, but a large portion of countries have laws preventing people from committing suicide through euthanasia. *In most cases of doctors administering euthanasia without consent, it is because the higher ups in the hospital are attempting to save resources. In these cases, some terminally ill and people with dementia people may be euthanized without explicit, or any, consent from the person themselves.
Euthanasia should be legalised.

Since many doctors now ,instead of passion treat it as occupation especially the unscrupulous ones will seize this opportunity.Drug prescription is in doctors hand and Patient's consent can be manipulated .If this got worse then they can even become murder machine. If Murder in the name of euthanasia would be legalised then we must be ready to face the consequences with the outbreak of law disobedience. Euthanasia perhaps target vulnerables to end their lives (suicide). Euthanasia will certainly increase the death counts.
Euthanasia should be legalised.

Euthanasia should be legalised. How would you feel if, each breath you take in feels like a hot spike shooting through your stomach and chest? If each step you take makes you want to hurl. If you were told that, in a month or so you were bound to die, and even though everything is so painful you have to keep on trudging through life to finally reach the peace offered by death? The definition of euthanasia is as follows: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster). Euthanasia is essentially giving someone permission to commit suicide (or if they cannot do so, a doctor helping them commit suicide). People need this permission because suicide is technically illegal, and they must obtain this permission from doctors. Once they have, the doctor will proceed to either kill the patient (in the case that the patient cannot kill themselves) or observe the patient's death to make sure it is as painless as possible. The patients usually die pretty peacefully by overdosing on some kind of drug. A DOCTOR MUST OBTAIN THE PATIENT'S CONSENT BEFORE EUTHANIZING THEM. If they do not, they are breaking the law and committing murder, not an act of euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia won't give doctors the power to kill people whenever they want. This is true for every jurisdiction I know of. You say that legalizing euthanasia will make the disabled people feel unequal? Why, because they are legally allowed to commit suicide and people who aren't disabled aren't? I don't quite understand. People only try to be euthanized if they want a relatively painless and controlled death. Otherwise, one could just commit suicide normally. Besides, legalizing euthanasia doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to struggle for life to the very end, well, there's nothing wrong with that.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent

To start off, that cake analogy is all wrong, a country is a slice of a continent, and a continent is a slice of the planet yet they are still different in many ways. just because they come from the same are does not mean they are identical. Also, when you said "When I consider Asia, I consider the fact that the Middle East is part of Asia" that may be true for you but i can name a few people who would not consider it. It s a matter of opinion. Some poelpe call India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, ect their own sub- continent and some dont. You might have been taught diferently. O and by the way, i am not talking about the middle east, not lebanon, not israel, not syrie, not turckeyy i am talking about the muslim part of that region that you call ME Their purview would be represented and the international commitee would redraw all the mpas if necessary, as they will soo because of global warming :P O and also, there is a diference between a country and a continent buddy Just because they are under a sa e continent does not mean they will start fighting. MAny if they were forced into their own country, then they would due to the government not pleasing everyone. Continents are not as important but are simply named to refer to a specific region with similar characteristics. This whole continent idea would not change all the oild business as the types of governmentsor the way countries govern would remian the same all that would happen is that the area i am designating would be easier to name and feel more untiy
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent

>> "it is not one of the worst ideas you have ever heard because it makes sense if you think about it for all of those who are gonna vote, just think about it" I just demonstrated that it DOESN'T make sense. When you think about it, why make a new continent from an existing one? If you take a slice of cake from the whole, it's still a slice, not a new cake. >> when you consider asia, you think of all the eastern countries, most people would not be able to place these countries in a continent. Since they practice similar religions, it wouldn't be that hard -- who said a continent had to be made up of countries with indetical beliefs anyway" When I consider Asia, I consider the fact that the Middle East is part of Asia. I'm not sure where you learned geography. The ME is part of Asia. So is Southeast Asia... or should that be its own continent as well. Or Eurasia for that matter... why is that not one continent? I also demonstrated above that these countries DO NOT practice similar religions. That's like calling Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics similar. >> "your last sentence:"If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision." thats is exactly what i said, should THEY not us but THEY making it THEIR decision" The people there haven't made their own continent because they recognize that it would be inappropriate to do so! Also, while it is their purview to "make" this continent, it is the international community's purview to accept it or not. Should they make a continent torn by conflict? Should the international community recognize this and redraw all their maps? You ask if they SHOULD make their own continent. I answer no - for the reasons I've put forth already. Your single argument for them making this continent is that it would "make them feel more united." This is simply false. When the British government grouped the Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunnis in a location and called it Iraq, it did not change the way they felt about Unity at all. If you want the ME to unite by themselves, you're going to have about 25 completely new states on this continent. SHOULD the ME make this continent and destabilize the world's oil producing region with the inevitable secessionist wars to create these states so they can feel unity? I think not....
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent

To start off, i wanted to put all those middle eastern countries in the title but my debate title only allowed 100 characters so i had to state th main ones. it is not one of the worst ideas you have ever heard because it makes sense if you think about it for all of those who are gonna vote, just think about it when you consider asia, you think of all the eastern countries, most people would not be able to place these countries in a continent. Since they practice similar religions, it wouldn't be that hard -- who said a continent had to be made up of countries with indetical beliefs anyway tarzan you made a good point but you are not answering the debate, we would not be violating it wtf this new continent would bring them unity your last sentence:"If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision." thats is exactly what i said, should THEY not us but THEY making it THEIR decision you read this debate completly wrong
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent

This is quite possibly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. For the purposes of this debate we'll consider your continent to consist of the following countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. We'll ignore for the moment that this kind of leaves out Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Israel, and Syria. Possibly Georgia, Azerbajain, and Turkey too. There are several distinct reasons why this should not be its own continent. 1. These countries are already on the same continent. There is a clear distinction between Europe and the Middle East. The Ural Mountains, and the Bosporus separate the Middle East from Europe. There's no clear separating geographical feature like that to separate these countries from the rest of Asia. They are already on the existing continent of Asia, and there is no reason to group them separately. If you desire to group them appropriately, then doing so by tectonic region makes much more sense. The Middle East is a distinct part of Asia. Would you want to call the Midwest its own country? It's simply a region. 2. Secondly, these countries are nothing alike. The closest thing they share is that there are a lot of Muslims in that region. However, there are several different "flavors" of Islam, if you will. Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabism, and several varying degrees of each. Consider - in Afghanistan, Muslim women must wear burkas. In Iraq, there is no such law. In Saudi Arabia, they recently outlawed Valentine's Day because it isn't a Muslim holiday and encourages sin. There is IMMENSE difference just in the Muslim population in this area. Furthermore, there are ethnic divides all over the region. The Kurds want to carve their own state out of three others, and Afghanistan has something like 7 major tribes in it that are all fighting for power. 3. Violating the self-determination of an entire region of the world, especially one that is fairly unstable, is a poor idea, and fairly egotistical of the West. Who are we to say that the Middle East should be its own continent? Additionally, this part of the world already hates the West (in general...) so why should we give them more reason to? If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision.
Mary is not the Mother of God.

Again, the title of this debate does not say "Mary does not have the DNA of Jesus" and it does not say "Mary is not the creator of God". So why is the Pro attempting to debate on irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the actual title of this debate which says "Mary is not the mother of God". I accept that Mary may not have the DNA of Jesus, and I've already said that no true Christian believes Mary created Jesus. For all those viewing this debate, ask yourself this question, ' Is a child who was given birth and raised by a mother from infant, to child, to teenager to adult not one's mother, even if the DNA is not exactly the same? ' Is the Pro also going to claim that Joseph was not the father? Even step parents are looked upon by the one they raised as being his or her parents, hence mother and father. Are not step parents called "mom" and "dad" by those who they raised? Of course they are. Also Pro, again you have shown yourself to be of bad will by not having directly answered my simple questions. I am therefore left with no alternative but to extrapolate from what you have stated to refute your own argument. Pro said, "1) He is 'God'..." Pro said, "Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us)." Pro said, "2) Jesus is our savior,...." So, by the Pro's own admission, "Jesus Christ is God" and "Jesus Christ is our Savior". Therefore since Pro claimed that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is God, then Mary is the mother of God. Here is the math... God is Jesus and Jesus is God ,,, Therefore 'Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God'. Another way of saying it is 'Mary is the mother of God who is Jesus.' Jesus is God. Mary is Jesus' mother. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. We also see in Scripture that Mary is called the mother of God. I'll use to King James version bible since that is what most of you non-Catholic protestants use......... Luke 1:41-43 - "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. and whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:46-47 - Mary responds to Elizabeth by saying, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." So, since the Pro has already stated that the Lord and Savior is God, then Mary is being called the mother of God in Luke 1:43. Plus if anyone dismisses Luke 1:43, then Mary makes it clear in Luke 1:46-47 that this Lord that she is carrying in her womb is God her savior. Therefore Mary is the mother of God. There is more evidence in favor of Mary being the mother of God on these web pages............ http://www.catholic.com... http://catholiclane.com... http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://avemary.org...
Mary is not the Mother of God.

CatholicTraditionist, I answered your questions in my original posting. I have stated the reasons for my 'interpretation' of how the scriptures have to be looked at, and 'joined together' so they cannot be contradicted in any way. Yes, JESUS IS PART OF THE GODHEAD (Isaiah 44:6). Jesus has 'TWO' functions (for a lack of a better way of saying it). 1) He is 'God' in terms of both He and His Father (The Lord God Almighty), together working in unison, are The Godhead. Together they both created all things (The 'us' in Genesis 1:26). 2) Jesus is our saviour, as Son of Man (CHRIST). He was the only one who was pure enough, to offer Himself as an 'unblemished LAMB'. Mary is only the MOTHER of Christ. For anyone to say that Mary is the mother of God, God would have had to been destroyed/killed, and then 're-created' again as 'Son of Man AND GOD'. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. 3) As I have posted previously, the physical appearance of Jesus as Son of Man, was still 'in the express image' of The Lord God Almighty. The physical appearance of Mary (her genes, and so on), had no effect on the physical appearance of Jesus. This could ONLY have happened, by The Holy Spirit implanting The Lord of Hosts (Jesus) in Mary, as an embryo/fetus. This allowed Jesus to remain in His original 'appearance' as He was as Lord of Hosts. It also explains the teachings of Jesus, as written in The Bible. There are no 'contradictions' in Christ's teachings. There are, however, contradictions, if I use YOUR theories.
Mary is not the Mother of God.

Pro, I see that you have chosen to ignore each one of my questions, which is evidence that you are of bad will. Also, the title of this debate is "Mary is not the Mother of God", so I would appreciate it if we focus on debating that. Instead you seem to want to focus on Jesus having existed before Mary. This debate has nothing to do with the preexistence of Jesus prior to the creation of his mother, Mary. All Catholics and other Trinitarians accept the fact that Jesus eternally existed prior to his incarnation(which means took on flesh and therefore had a human nature). None of us believe that Mary created Jesus. So, since you failed to answer my simple questions on the faith, then I have no choice but to work with the heretical things you have said so far. Pro said, "Jesus was implanted in Mary as an embryo/fetus. The body of Mary was simply used for the gestation period until the embryo/fetus reached the point, in order for The Lord of Hosts to be born as a human child." What you have just stated, Pro, is not found in the Bible. You are simply making it up. Jesus was not some lab experiment implanted inside of a lab rat. You are denying the Christian doctrine of the "incarnation" which is a miracle, not a science project and/or Sci-fi movie. Also, you still have not answered my original questions, so I will ask my questions again. If you are an honest person and of good will, then you will answer my simple questions.... 1. When Jesus came to us 2000 yrs ago, after his incarnation, then was Jesus both God and man 'or' was Jesus a man that God only dwelt within, and therefore Jesus himself was not actually God? 2. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he walked on the Earth? 3. Again, if you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being ripped by the Romans soldiers? 4. Once again, If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being nailed to that cross? 5. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he had risen from death? 6. Lastly, when you as a "Christian" refer to Jesus Christ as your Lord, then are you referring to him as your God 'or' instead do you refer to him only as your master, just as the Jehovah Witnesses do? Note: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God.
Mary is not the Mother of God.

God and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts) existed before any humans were created on earth. Jesus was begotten 'without a mother'. Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us). When Jesus (The Lord of Hosts) took on flesh, The Lord of Hosts was not 'killed off'. He simply became The Lord of Hosts 'in the flesh'. The scriptures tell us, that 'God was in Christ' and 'Christ was in God' (The Godhead per Isaiah 44:6). If you note, Christ stated, "If you see me, you see The Father (The Lord God Almighty)". Scriptures tell us that Jesus was begotten 'in the express image' of His Father. The physical appearance of Mary did not have any impact on the appearance of Jesus, as Son of Man. This could only happen, if The Lord of Hosts was implanted in Mary, as an embryo/fetus. CatholicTraditionalist, This is weird. When I try to respond with a new 'argument', my previous posting appears. In response to your posting, this is what I believe the scriptures are 'telling me'; Jesus, as LORD OF HOSTS, was begotten 'without mother'. His Father (The Lord God Almighty) included Jesus in the 'GODHEAD' (Isaiah 44:6). In order for Jesus to become 'The Christ' (Son of Man), Jesus was implanted in Mary as an embryo/fetus. The body of Mary was simply used for the gestation period until the embryo/fetus reached the point, in order for The Lord of Hosts to be born as a human child. There was absolutely no change made to The Lord of Hosts as He had been begotten, in the beginning. Mary was still not 'The Mother of God'. Mary was the 'Mother of the human form taken on by God.