BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

Self ownership and prohibition of voluntary euthanasia are at odds.If self ownership and personal autonomy are to be mantained, one must be given the right to decide when and how they die when it is within their ability and so long as they do not infringe on any other person's rights. This is a straightforward statement. Now I will provide responses to objections against personal autonomy and objections to prohibited euthanasia being at odds with autonomy."One does not have the right to self ownership."This is one of the responses my opponent could bring against my charge that prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia are at odds with personal autonomy. So what? We don't own our bodies anyways. But here my opponent would run into a performative contradiction. For if one can prohibit another form ending their life, one is not only presupposing ownership as a possibility, but also presupposes that a casual observer possesses more of a right to control one's body then does the actual user of the body. Cross-examination: What is the reason that an observer has more right over a body than the one who uses it?"Prohibition on voluntary euthanasia is not at odds with personal autonomy."This is the second option my opponent can bring. But to see how it is flawed, we merely need to analyze closer what exactly autonomy is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines personal autonomy as "to be a law to oneself, autonomous agents, are self-governing agents." In this sense, personal autonomy means that one controls their own body. But how can one argue that not allowing someone to perform an action on their own property that does not infringe on another's property be in line with respect for personal autonomy? Imagine if I claimed to respect the fact that you own your house. You later try to replace some carpet with tile flooring at some point and I, upon hearing this, do not allow you to do so. Regardless of whether I am right in prohibiting you from doing this, I cannot genuinely argue that I am still respecting your property rights over your house. The same goes for voluntary euthanasia. It does not infringe on another's property and so interfering to stop it is not in respect of one's property rights.That will be it for this round. In conclusion, prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, are in direct contradiction to one's own personal autonomy. I will expand on specific issues that my opponent brings to my arguments in later rounds and also further elaborate on my first point when my opponent answers my cross-examination question.
Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

Full resolution: Voluntary euthanasia should be legalized in the U.S.A. Rules/ Clarifications 1. Drops will count as concessions. 2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted. 3. Burden of proof will be shared. 4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted. 5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2. Definitions Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests that action be taken to end his life, or that life-saving treatment be stopped, with full knowledge that this will lead to his death.[1] My definition does not necessarily make a disctinction between active and passive euthanasia, only that its voluntary on the patients' request. Should- ought, to be the more ethical consideration. Legalize- to make legal or lawful [1] http://www.pregnantpause.org...
The Legend of Zelda is a better game series than Mario Bros .

A. You never told my why. There are so many polls done on "the best video game ever." Like this one! Done by Official Nintendo magazine. http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk... Your just telling me "No video game can beat it" you're not supplying me with any actual reason as to why, except that it is a classic. People also play The Legend of Zelda to this day as well... as it is also a classic. B. Zelda is not repetitive. I click on your venture beat link and nothing appears... But nonetheless,I have given you several reasons to tell you exactly why Zelda ISN'T repetitive. You have given me none. There is alot to the story... if you wish to read about some of the earlier games storyline I will post a link. http://www.zeldalegends.net... Do you fail to see the how repetitive Mario is? You run through a course, jumping on different enemies. Shooting some fireballs and flying.C. Your third point.Yes, Mario has several different spin offs. There are alot more Mario games than Zelda, but I fail to see how that makes it the better game. Also, if you are honestly going to defend the Super Mario Bros. movie, as a good thing, then there is something very wrong here. Practically everything about that movie is awful, let's watch a review, shall we? http://www.youtube.com...;(the review was placed in the top right of this arguement, not sure how to change it) Every review I have seen of the movie is not any nicer, either.You tell me I mentioned Ocarina of Time alot. Yes, I actually labeled the section "Nintendo 64 era." But I also go into further detail on this game because it is the best game in the series for many, many people. They also introduced the most new things in this game. It seems you want me to mention every Zelda game in detail, when you fail to do one with Mario. I am not going to go in depth on every game, that would be absurd. D. Your last comment was ridiculousThere is absolutely no reason stated as to why Zelda wouldn't exist without Mario. The creator of Zelda (Shigeru Miyamoto) got the idea of the Legend of Zelda form his experiences as a young boy, exploring lakes, and caves. How does this directly relate to Mario at all? (1) http://www.link-uri.net... Con fails to prove any of pro's points false, and provides insufficient material.
The Legend of Zelda is a better game series than Mario Bros .

1st. Mario Bros. is an all time classic Super Mario Bros. is a game that revolutionized the gaming industry. No video game can beat it. In 2005 IGN had poll for best video game of all time. The winner of that poll was Super Mario Bros. (http://top100.ign.com...). To this day people still play this game. 2nd. Zelda is repetitiveAccording to http://venturebeat.com... is repetitve. It also states that the difficulty is easy. Every Zelda game has the same mechanics. Its the same kind of story with only a few things different.3rd Mario Spin-offs Mario has created countless spin-offs. For example MarioKart. This one series has created a multitude of spinoffs. It has also spawned a movie. What can Zelda say to that. You mention Ocarina of Time a lot. That is one game out of the several others in the series. So what if one game was good. We are talking about the series as a whole.Without the creation of Super Mario we would not have Zelda. Mario saved Nintendo. Without Mario there is no Zelda.
The Legend of Zelda is a better game series than Mario Bros .

All right, let's get to it then.A. The origin of the games.As we all know Super Mario Bros. was Nintendo's first "home-run" of a video game. I'm not going to deny that. It was a great sidescrolling game where you jumped on enemies and through one stage to get to the next. A few years after the release of Super Mario Bros. came the release of the Legend of Zelda. The Legend of Zelda was a revolutionary game from Nintendo. For the first time, you could actually choose where you wanted to go in the game. You could go explore a cave, tackle the next main boss in the storyline, or some sort of sidequest. The Legend of Zelda mixed the qualities or action, adventure, and puzzle solving into one game, and that game turned out to be one of the largest, and most popular, franchises of nintendo history.B. The Nintendo 64 era.I'm relatively positive that we can both agree that when the Nintendo 64 came out, Nintendo made some huge changes to both of the game series. Creating both Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, which are the most favored games in both series.(1) The Ocarine of Time still had the action, adventure, and puzzle characteristics in it, but on a much larger scale. Several of the puzzles in the game were actually extremely challenging and required alot of ingenuity to get through them. The most infamous of the temples in the game was the dreaded water temple. It can get rather frustrating at times as well, but that just gives you even more satisfaction when you finally pass that puzzle. (2) The Ocarina of Time also has a great combat system that is always feeling fresh. Beings you get new weapons in every temple you go through, the combat system never really gets stale, not to mention every enemy has a different way to defeat them. You can't just slash every enemy with your sword, you have to utilize every piece of equipment you posess to get through all of the foes.(3) Ocarina of Time also didn't hold back on side quests, to keep you busy for hours. Getting all of the heart pieces is quite a challenge. To get these pieces you have to do all sorts of things, such as catching a large fish at the lake, play all of the different mini games offered throughout the course of the game, explore new regions, or shoot golden skulltulas off of the wall.There are so many different things to do in the game, the gameplay rarely gets stale because of all of these different activities. Super Mario Bros just doesn't have enough diversity in the gameplay, the jist of it is running through course after course. Either jumping on, or throwing fireballs at, all of your enemies.
Apple is superior than Microsoft.

Apple is Better than Microsoft in Management. We will start, with an unexpected beginning. Did you know, that Apple is now worth much more than Microsoft? Apple is worth 310B and Microsoft is worth 244B, although many people know this, it is necessary for it to be shown in this argument. Microsoft spent an incredibly high amount of money trying to grow their company. Right now, Apple is making decisions helping the company grow, while Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is spending its money very desperately. Microsoft spent incredibly high amounts of money, on their efforts to defend their computer product business. I'd laugh at the "good work" of Microsoft at this moment. Considering how much companies use Microsoft's network such as: Dell, Toshiba, and Samsung. Apple designs their own computers, phones, and networks. Knowing this, Apple is still worth much more money than Microsoft, considering all of the companies who use their network. Apple is Better than Microsoft for Work Apple provides free working tools, such as: Pages, Keynote, and Numbers. While in the other hand Microsoft Office costs about $99.00 per-year subscription, they also take time to learn. Pages is superior than Word and Publisher, for starters, its much better designed and its much easier to reach what you want to do in your document, with many templates that are better than the ones shown in Publisher and Word. Keynote and PowerPoint, Keynote like pages is very well designed, but other than that, Keynote and PowerPoint are very related, only that PowerPoint is costly and Keynote is much easier to use, and Keynote is free of cost. Apple is Better than Microsoft in Computers Apple's computers are much better quality than Microsoft. For example, a MacBook Pro is estimated to last about 5-6 years if its well cared. Microsoft's computers, are made to damage themselves, so you would have to buy another one. Apple's computers like MacBook Air's battery can last 12hrs or more, while Microsoft computers last about 3-4 hours of battery life.
Precondemned by [the Christian] God

And an odd one, considering that we are two non-Christians debating Christian doctrine. I will make a brief rebuttal to my opponent's closing:My opponent lists several verses that he claims directly contradict the idea of universal salvation. Whether they do or not, however, is somewhat beside the point - all religions contain contradictions within themselves, and Christianity is no exception. In fact, it is in reconciling those contradictions that some of the most vibrant discussion is to be found. While the verses cited by my opponent seem to contradict the idea of universal salvation, other verses can be found supporting the idea:Colossians 1:19-20: For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.1 Timothy 2:3-4: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. And this is how many arguments proceed in (Protestant) Christianity, by citing conflicting scriptures at one another. The various branches of Christianity must reconcile such contradictions by looking to the central promise at the heart of Christianity - the redemption of the world through the sacrifice of Christ. Through that lens, many Christians find the better side of the argument lies with at least a possibility of universalism. This is no minor technicality, as my opponent suggests, but a question of how to interpret the heart of Christianity - is Christ for some, or all? I have no special standing to settle that question. What I can say is, based on the assumptions my opponent asked us to make at the start of this debate, that the existence of an omnipotent Christian God does not necessitate that any person is precondemned to hell.
Precondemned by [the Christian] God

I believe that my opponent is correct in that this debate has little direction left to go - it actually took a on very different direction that I had imagined. The differing beliefs of Christianity are many, and we cannot know which is correct (assuming Christianity is correct). I am not a Christian, nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable to make such judgments, but can one say that if a belief is directly contradictory to the bible, it is wrong? I refer to the following passages from the Bible that contradict the concept of Universal Salvation. I have looked up many versions of the Bible, and they all read the same basic way. Matthew 7:13-14 13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Luke 13:23-24 23 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And he said to them, 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Isaiah 35:8 And a highway will be there, it will be called the Way of Holiness; it will be for those who walk on that Way. The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it. further, I don't believe that the possibility of impossibility refutes the entire point. My original point was based on the verses in the Bible (hence, the passages). So, one can then argue that if some Christians simply reject such verses in the Bible, that completely nullifies the point because they have created the a possible scenario in which the original premise is completely false? I belief this to be using a minor technicality to defeat the argument. In any case, I want to thank my opponent again. No matter the result of this debate, I know more now than I did prior to this debate.
Precondemned by [the Christian] God

Indeed, I have intentionally attempted to steer this discussion away from the separate "free will or not" debate. Regarding the argument that some branches of Christianity do not believe that any shall go to Hell (The Christian Universalist Association), indeed, I shall concede that in this case the original argument would be nullified. In regards to Calvinism, they explicitly believe in predetermination. But, since these two branches do not represent the entirely of Christianity and that it is not possibly to determine which specific branches are truly correct, I shall motion to set those "absolute" branches aside for the last round of this debate. I shall return to the topic of free will, however, for it still has a presence in this issue. If a branch of Christianity believes in the existence of Hell and that some shall find there way there, that there are, in fact, conditions set forth that dictate whether an individual has qualified to descend to Hell. In the Bible, it is stated, pertaining to God, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. " [1] This means that He is responsible for our body, and specifically, our brains and minds. Our free will is confined to the limitations of our mind and we do not have absolute control over our thoughts and beliefs. For instance, one cannot simply choose to believe himself an elephant without sufficiently convincing evidence or delusion. Due to this, there exist conditions that are insurmountable to some minds. We understand that there are differing beliefs in regard to Hell, but we haven't a need to break down all of these possible conditions for Hell that various branches of Christianity believe. Regardless of the specifics, there are some who have not been granted the ability or possibility to meet those conditions. For example, if the condition were to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 14:6 [1]), then there are many who will not be able to meet the conditions based upon their situation and limitation of free will. Those who are born into a culture with no exposure to Christianity cannot accept Jesus, since they ares ignorant of Him. Those of truly skeptical minds cannot force themselves to belief and therefore, cannot genuinely accept Him. Those who possess mental disabilities which make it impossibly for them to communicate and understand Christianity at all. The criminally insane, who commit and enjoy horrible acts without having the cognitive rationale to understand that they must repent. To present a specific example, I reference the Aztec civilization [2]. If born as an Aztec, one was indoctrinated into their belief system. The Aztec, as God has created him, stood no chance of attaining salvation based on the conditions that God has set forth. Apart from the impossibility of accepting Jesus, these people committed vile acts (common human sacrifice) so even if a branch of Christianity believes that good acts simply qualify one for heaven, they would fail because their religion and customs dos not align with Christian morality. [1] John 1:3, The King James Holy Bible [2] . http://www.aztec-history.com...
Precondemned by [the Christian] God

This debate shall assume that the Christian God exists as an omniscient being. I will argue that at least some are predetermined to be cursed to Hell by God. 1 John 3:20 [omniscience] For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die." If God is to be omniscient, than He is to be intimately familiar with the minds and situations of all beings. With that, He, as the Creator of the world and all thing in it, has created minds with the inability to accept Jesus Christ as their savior, and has also allowed some to exist in the world without contact with Christianity, hence, having not the very concept of Jesus Christ. Therefore, since God has defined the condition which must be met in order to achieve 'eternal life' AND he has bestowed or permitted limitations that make some incapable of meeting those conditions, he is ultimately responsible for their eternal fate.
Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code geass is dead

I thank the Pro for there arguments and thought that was put into this debate To begin i do not accept death as a state of mind like my opponent is saying the term dead means no longer alive meaning the body no longer functions and is at a permanent end. Secondly if i were to follow my opponents definition of death as a state of mind. The quote my opponent refers to is actually used in the context of Lelouch feeling dead in the with his boring life at the start of the anime and that C2 gave him his life back meaning his mind was no longer in a dead state so through the entire anime he was still not absolutely dead but only "dead" in one instance.
Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code geass is dead

I accept con's terms. FIrst, I am glad that Con tried to find a loophole into this debate, however, I can still breeze through this debate with ease. But, With accepting con's term of Lelouch be dead the whole entire time, I want con to accept the term of dead as: Dead: A state of death in reality. (Assuming Con does accept) FIrstly, At the beginning of Code geass R1, Lelouch accidentally gets himself in trouble with terrorists (rebels) and eventually finds himself running away from the Britannian Royal guards. However when in the scene where Lelouch gets caught due to his phone; C2 saves Lelouch's life. Then Lelouch gets geass from C2. After that event, several episodes later, when Cornelia invades the ghetto, C2 tries to stop Lelouch from counter-invading Cornelia by pointing a gun at Lelouch, threatening to shoot Lelouch, but Lelouch replies by saying that he was dead already, that he was living a fake life, because C2 saved him and gave him Geass. I don't really know the specific episode but I believe it's episode 6-9 between the two episodes, one of them contain the reference I am talking about.
Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code geass is dead

First i am glad that Brian123456 has posted this challenge. To begin I do not agree that i must accept that Lelouch Vi Britannia is dead at the end of Code Geass because that is not what the resolution states. The resolution says "Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code Geass is dead", and it does not say anything about the ending of the anime. So following the resolution the statement is an absolute saying that Lelouch is dead the entire time.I ask my opponent to accept the terms of the resolution itself not "his" interpretation of it. thank you
Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code geass is dead

Your original topic was quote "Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code Geass is dead. " no where in that topic does it say "at the end of Code Geass" ergo i am only required by the topic to give at least one example in which Lelouch Vi Britannia is alive to win this debate. That example can be every episode of R1 and R2 excluding the last episode, and that is why i win this debate.
Lelouch Vi Britannia of Code geass is dead

If you accept my conditions or not it is none of my concern. The fact is that you cannot change the meaning of something to fit your situation and arguments better what any judge or voter of this round needs to know is that death has a meaning and that is a body that has met a permanent end . And not only did i successfully reject my opponent's conditions i also addressed them as if they were justified which they are not.