BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our generation is victim of low expectations - Books

I have few questions: What does the opponent base his/her claim off of--that our generation is victim of low expectations--that our teens have no inspiring books--that young adults 50 years ago were expected to learn more? Moreover, to say nothing of the ontology of God, what is human's God-given potential? How old do you consider teens? ---- Creationist cites no one piece of evidence to back up her claim other than empirical data, an anecdote at that. In fact, there are, in the marketplace, many books, both self-edifying and educational, that target young adults.http://sbfonline.com... Moreover, standard/quality of education for young adults fifty years ago was lecture-oriented with little participation in the learning experience on the student's part and, even if it were so and the point were to be conceded that indeed requirements were higher, it is indisputable that such quality of education was not available equally to all, in light of prevalent dogma of racism, sexism and secularism of the day.http://coeexchange.com... At any rate, standards of education in the US shows promise of improvement: http://lincolntribune.com... I await rebuttal.
Our generation is victim of low expectations - Books

Just recently I was at a local bookstore looking for books on a "teen reading level". Most bookstores have a designated teen aisle so I walked over and started to browse through the titles. I was surprised at what I found. Almost all were fiction with a sadly twisted plot. Most had some reference to vampires, blood or lost love. Furthermore there were no books that could have helped prepare teens for the oncoming step into to adulthood. There were no inspirational books or books of information, politics or decision making. There was nothing to help teens prepare for the future, nothing that would help equip them for the important decision making required of them as adults. Based on the current path of society, I probably shouldn't have been surprised. But I had to ask myself, how did we get here? What went so dreadfully wrong? Were we ever expected to do anything more than what most of us are required to do now which, let's face it, is just about nothing. Make our bed, do an occasional chore, and get decent grades in school is just about all. It seems like even less when we compare it to what we could be doing with our amazing God-given potential. What we are expected to do is less than young adults were required to do only about 50 years ago.
Russia should not be sanctioned!

The debate is over Russia and should it be sanctioned over Ukraine. I would say the BOP is shared because the debate is a dichotomy. Either we sanction Russia, or we don't. Anyway, Pro is saying we should NOT sanction Russia. I say we SHOULD sanction Russia.Now that my preamble is finished, let's start with Pro's argument.< Pro's argument >From what I gathered from his argument is that Russia is under economic stress, and for that reason, we should not sanction them. He also notes that Europe would suffer, which is probably true. However, he doesn't say why America (Seeing how my opponent is from Eastern Europe, and I am American, I will simply say "America".) or other nations shouldn't sanction Russia. Only about Russia's weak economy. I say that makes sanctions BETTER because it creates more pressure on said nation. I don't think Russia burning bridges with Germany hurts them more then Germany because they are only losing business. Germany seems to be able to be self sufficient in the near future anyway.[1]< My argument >This is more so connected with Russia's business in Ukraine. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is probably not for the good of all, and is spreading political chaos in Europe. We have seen this before, not with Russia, but with Nazi Germany. With sanctions, we can make the annexation of Crimea unprofitable, and that is the point. I will expand more, next round.[1] http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...
Russia should not be sanctioned!

The arguments in this debate will be based on the negative impact of these sanctions against EU countries (such as Slovenia). In an extreme case, the GDP of Slovenia would decrease by 1,3% resulting in a 1,6 billion euro loss, a worse case would be presented in Denmark, which is Russia's number 1 european trading partner, while Slovenia is in second place. Even Germany opposes this act. If an escalation of Europe's stand-off with Moscow over Ukraine results in economic sanctions, more than 6,000 German companies who do business with Russia would suffer catastrophic losses, Germany's main trade body has warned. Not to mention Russia's already failing economy going even further down the hill. The low level of investments (nearly 20% of GDP per year when the normal level is nearly 30% of GDP), worsening demographic situation (the number of residents in Russia has decreased by five million in comparison with 1990), and outdated structure of the economy gradually so reduced the competitiveness of Russian producers that import to Russia increased fivefold from 2000 to 2008, while export only increased 40%. Today Russia exports chiefly oil and natural gas, and the production of knowledge-intensive products has been decreasing (Russia produces no more than 20 civil aircraft per year) or is dependent on foreign partners (cars, consumer goods). When the rise of oil prices stopped in 2008, so did the average growth of the Russian economy, which stuck at a level less of than 1%. The federal budget decreased because of rapidly growing imports since 2009; although the 2006 oil price of 30 USD per barrel was sufficient to smooth the budget, this year oil should be selling for 115 USD per barrel. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Russia missed the best period in its modern history, and in 2014 it is in a very delicate economic situation. The Russian authorities" attempt to create a modern technological park in Skolkovo resulted in the waste of a more than a billion dollars. That number is actually not so frightening when compared with the absurd 50 billion dollars for the Olympic Games in Sochi. The high level of corruption, the unpredictable behavior of bureaucrats, and the lack of independent courts have placed Russia 124th among the 147 countries whose economic positions are tracked by the World Economic Forum.2013 was a bad year, but this year the confidence of Russian and foreign investors is unequivocally lost. Investments have been declining constantly as those who can change their money into dollars or, better yet, transfer their capital to foreign banks. According to the Russian government"s valuation, 70 billion USD has been withdrawn in the first three months " more than all of last year! Since the beginning of this year, the ruble has lost 10% of its value against the dollar, though the Central Bank has spent 40 billion USD on foreign currency interventions to bolster the national currency. Sources: http://www.bbc.com...... http://voiceofrussia.com...... http://www.siol.net...... http://www.bbc.com......
Jailing People For Leaving the Military Or Dodging The Draft Violates the 13th Amendment

If it is, I'll forfeit the next round to make it even. Also, we have basically the same username. I thought that was cool. On to business. The primary problem with your argument is that you suggest the Amendment supersedes the rest of the Constitution. Article III, Section VIII of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies. Does that mean that the 13th Amendment infringes on the powers of Congress? Yes it does. In addition, ambiguity in the 13th Amendment should be noted. It does not say explicitly what can and cannot be considered involuntary servitude. If you argue that being forced to serve in the military is against the 13th Amendment, you are also implying that because attending school is involuntary and it is a punishable offense not to do so, forcing children to go to school is unconstitutional. The same can be said of jury duty. Furthermore, there are many generally accepted laws that technically contradict what I would assume to be your interpretation of the Constitution:-Fraud and Slander laws limit free speech (1st Amendment). -Freedom of religion does not protect human sacrifices because that would infringe on another person's right to life. -Libel and false advertising law limit freedom of the press (1st Amendment). -The right to bear arms is limited by laws against assault rifles and fully automatic firearms (1st Amendment). Are all these unconstitutional as well? And above all, it is up to the Judicial system to interpret laws, keeping government balanced, and ambiguous laws fall under their jurisdiction. You cannot declare that something conflicts with the 13th Amendment, because you are forced to use your own interpretation of the 13th Amendment to come to that conclusion. In order to effectively argue your viewpoint, you will have to argue that you know not only the intentions of the people who wrote and passed the 13th Amendment, but that the Courts agree with you. SHOULD the draft be unconstitutional is a very different debate, and I think that you would have a much easier time proving that. You did not say should. You declared that it DOES violate the 13th Amendment, and as you have not provided a strong court interpretation that would support your notion that it includes military service, I am puzzled how you can fulfill your burden of proof. If you can, I would love to continue this debate. Thank you, and thank you for the debate. Sources:U. S. Constitution
Jailing People For Leaving the Military Or Dodging The Draft Violates the 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment statesSection 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.Whether it amounts to slavery aside, it certainly amounts to a form of involuntary servitude. In no other case even if it's a government employee would a contract stipulating the person could be arrested as penalty for exiting the contract be considered acceptable, and would definitely fail the 13th amendment.What we can do, what is constitutional is to impose serious fines as a consequence, just as it is acceptable for companies to contract people and impose extreme financial penalties for leaving. Legalized employment discrimination against "deserters" could also help to deter desertion without holding soldiers in involuntary servitude. Removal of other benefits could also be part of the penalty, including social security (while still requiring them to pay in) and any college benefits.If the nation ever requires a "draft" to get enough soldiers we could also avoid subjecting people to "involuntary servitude" while enforcing the law through serious financial penalties.
Resolved: The Qur'an contains scientific foreknowledge

Resolved: Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge ExistsI negate.RULES1: The Burden of Proof is on Pro, as Pro is making the positive claim while Con makes no such claim.2: Pro will forfeit Round 4.3: Pro must present no more than 1 central claim of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge in this debate.4: Failing to fulfill any of these rules is grounds for a 7-point forfeiture.ROUND SCHEDULERound 1: Con states rules, round schedule, and definitions. Pro makes opening arguments.Round 2: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro rebuts Con's arguments.Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro summarizes the debate.Round 4: Con summarizes the debate. Pro forfeits the round.DEFINITIONSQur'anic scientific foreknowledge is defined as "through Allah's revelations to the prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an accurately predicts scientific knowledge that could not have been known at the time of its writing".
Resolved: The Qur'an contains scientific foreknowledge

AS I need to forfeit my right to argue in this round four, I will simply rant and ramble as my opponent can no longer argue. I have stated that the Quran says people will intentionally or unintentionally spread false religion, this is a scientific fact, and because there was no evidence that the Quran would sustain itself as a world leading religion, the fact that the Quran is used as a false religion makes it very relevant as foreknowledge considering societies scientifically recorded events. So, although I forfeit this debate round, I reinforce my confidence in what I have already stated and established prior. I did admit I want to be on the other side of this debate. However, apart from science, the Quran suggests that multiple big bangs could have occurred. Which is a scientific statement which has yet to be proven, but it is the only source anywhere stipulating such things are possible. I can go on and on about how my opponent never indicated I needed to source my claims or information, seeing as we should have both been well verse in the Quran before hand to have this debate, but what was irritating was my opponent did not even make mention of a single claim he has heard of in which a Muslim referenced the Quran indicating it held scientific foreknowldge that has been since discovered, therefor entirely disbanning his BoP which was 'that the Quran does not Have Scientific Foreknowledge'. " in a debate you should have had a cause for debate, and so referencing a scientific fact Muslims claim is in it, which was not foreknowledge should have been your primary debate component; the substance which instigated it. Apart from that, it was scientific, however not foreknowledge to indicate Hell comes to sinners.
The legalization of assisted suicide.

1) I have stated in the definition of assisted suicide it is "The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. " The reason that these people are going to assisted suicide can be for only physical health reasons. Plus, as I've stated, this will be easier for the families of the patient; this will stop people from committing suicide in a gruesome way and will have a formal way for the family saying good bye. Only 3% of patients seeking physician assisted suicide cited pain as the sole factor for their decision. I do not presume that all suicides are gruesome as it is very easy to commit suicide without bloodshed. the fourth most common way in which individuals commit suicide is by using cyanide capsules which can be easily bought over the internet, if the person is of sound mind then a simple web search should yield sufficient results to obtain the desired results. As for the formal goodbye to their family if they plan to commit suicide with reasonable research and experience no more pain in the process then the goodbyes should be no less formal. 2)I've already instated that this is only for people that have an incurable disease in which they are suffering from. This is not for people that are emotionally depressed and want to commit suicide. Incurable terminable diseases will unfortunately almost always result in death from that disease however If only 3% of patients are citing pain as the sole reason then the other 97% of people are citing reasons which stem from emotional stress and depression, in fact 51% of those seeking assisted suicide didn't cite pain at all. Any individual seeking assisted suicide should talk about it with their physicians and be treated for any problems that are causing these feelings either through medication, therapy or both but not assisted in dying. 3)Someone is put in a hospice when it is time for them to die. That means that the illness has took it's coarse and has most likely caused significant amounts of pain and suffering to this individual both emotionally and physically. It is not right to outlaw something that the patient wants to do. People with special circumstances can request hospice care if they are terminally ill in order to manage their disease. I will agree that it is not right to outlaw something that the patient wants to do, however it is right to outlaw the assistance from a physician to contribute to the death of a patient regardless of circumstances 4)I'm going to be as brief as possible and say that you should watch the entire video instead of making bleak assumptions. I now leave this to my adversary and the voters. Vote accordingly and may the best man win! I hand the stand back to my adversary. I may watch the entire video at a later time however after watching the portion which I did I must say it failed to garner my attention and did not compel me to change my stance on the topic.
The legalization of assisted suicide.

I thank my adversary for his reply, and I will gladly respond to him. Before I begin my counter arguments I must inform con that he is missing the point of the debate. Phase 2 was just making your main points with no rebuttals to me, which con has failed to do. I will now begin with cons first argument. (1)"that is why do people willing to turn to assisted suicide need assistance in the first place why are they not just commiting suicide on their own? " I have stated in the definition of assisted suicide it is "The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose." The reason that these people are going to assisted suicide can be for only physical health reasons. Plus, as I've stated, this will be easier for the families of the patient; this will stop people from committing suicide in a gruesome way and will have a formal way for the family saying good bye. (2)" Suicide is usually a result of depression and we spend quite a significant amount of money on anti depressant medication studies and support groups for those considering suicide so how is it ok to publicly support one groups desire for suicide and even assist it but be against another groups desire of the same end and send them to mental institutions if they fail at accomplishing their task?" I've already instated that this is only for people that have an incurable disease in which they are suffering from. This is not for people that are emotionally depressed and want to commit suicide. (3)"suicide has been labeled a permanent solution to a temporary problem and I understand the dilemma when it comes to someone with a terminal illness but that is why we have hospices, both in home hospices and hospice facilities that can ease the pain that comes near the end of a terminal illness and in a hospice no one commits suicide and no one assists in its application." Someone is put in a hospice when it is time for them to die. That means that the illness has took it's coarse and has most likely caused significant amounts of pain and suffering to this individual both emotionally and physically. It is not right to outlaw something that the patient wants to do. (4)"I did watch a portion of the video you recommended but was immediately taken back when it was stated that the man in the focal point of the documentary suffered from alzhiemers which meant that his cognitive functions were not at the peak of performance and thus if he were to commit suicide an autopsy report would indicate that he suffered from mental illness and committed suicide so wouldn't it also be against a doctors sworn code of ethics to assist a mentally ill patient to do harm to himself or others." I'm going to be as brief as possible and say that you should watch the entire video instead of making bleak assumptions. I now leave this to my adversary and the voters. Vote accordingly and may the best man win! I hand the stand back to my adversary.
The legalization of assisted suicide.

You make a very compelling argument my friend but to counter your argument I pose a logical question and that is why do people willing to turn to assisted suicide need assistance in the first place why are they not just commiting suicide on their own? Suicide is usually a result of depression and we spend quite a significant amount of money on anti depressant medication studies and support groups for those considering suicide so how is it ok to publicly support one groups desire for suicide and even assist it but be against another groups desire of the same end and send them to mental institutions if they fail at accomplishing their task. suicide has been labeled a permanent solution to a temporary problem and I understand the dilemma when it comes to someone with a terminal illness but that is why we have hospices, both in home hospices and hospice facilities that can ease the pain that comes near the end of a terminal illness and in a hospice no one commits suicide and no one assists in its application. I did watch a portion of the video you recommended but was immediately taken back when it was stated that the man in the focal point of the documentary suffered from alzhiemers which meant that his cognitive functions were not at the peak of performance and thus if he were to commit suicide an autopsy report would indicate that he suffered from mental illness and committed suicide so wouldn't it also be against a doctors sworn code of ethics to assist a mentally ill patient to do harm to himself or others. in conclusion I take the stance against legalized assisted suicide for all of the above reasons and while we cant stop someone from committing suicide on their own accord it would be irresponsible, even criminally negligent to assist in such an action.
The legalization of assisted suicide.

Allow me to begin with my main points and arguments: 1. It is ones right to choose how and when to die if they so wish. 2. Tremendous amounts of pain and suffering can be saved. 3. Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. 4. Vital organs can be saved, helping doctors save more lives. 5. This can result in an easier experience for the families of the patient, letting them say goodbye. 6. This will NOT give doctors the right to kill people. It gives the patient the choice to end their suffering and pain. (1) We as a people have always wanted to give people the right to do as they please with their body. This is a act which will give a person a humane choice. Let them know that they can do as they wish. If it's their body, it should be legal to do as they wish to it. (2) This is a moral act and many people would agree too. If a person is in immense emotional and physical pain, shouldn't they have the option to end their own suffering with out any legal repercussion? I'd like to bring in pets right now. When a pet is in a lot of terminal pain, nearly all people will take it to the vet to have it die in a quick painless and humane way. So we have to ask, why aren't we okay for humans to give themselves this? (3) Health care can be greatly reduced by this inexpensive humane treatment. to continue treatment for a terminal illness can cost thousands of dollars to fighting a illness that is incurable. This will make it easier to pay for and easier financially for the family. (4)Destructive cancers that will destroy organs can be stopped and the organs can be saved to use on other patients in this procedure is used, potentially saving lives. (5)This can result in a easier emotional experience for the family of the patient. This will let them say a formal goodbye, and will let them feel as if their family member is no longer suffering and is going to be happier when they die. (6)This will defiantly NOT give doctors the right to kill people. This will be the patients decision (if they are in sound mind) or in the decision of the family. Just like the right to pull the plug. If an individual is not given proper treatment, an attorney will be called upon. Finally, I encourage my adversary to watch this documentary in full. Please look up on YouTube. com Terry Pratchett: Choosing To Die (2011) - Full Documentary. Conclusion: I believe this is an easy topic to support for reasons I have stated and for the documentary I have linked. I now await my adversary to take the stand.