BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)

before we start the debate i would like to tell a story of my latter years: when i was in highschool i had a job at the local supermarket bagging groceries. i would try my best to be very friendly to everyone i met. one day there was a morbidly obese man that walked up to the register and demanded i serve him. "Yes sir" i said, looking him up and down i could tell from his greasy hair and horrid acne that he was truly a basement warrior and easily over 300 lbs. one other thing that was very prominent was his stench, which could only be described as the acrid urine of satan after a healthy helping of asparagus. as i looked in his cart i noticed something also strange. his cart consisted of almost only mountain dew, doritos, and hot pockets. i rang up the total to 300$. "here you go" he said as he shoved his fat, sweaty hand into his pocket and retrieved 280$ and various lose change. after purchasing his various goods he then proceeded to reminisce about his my little pony and fedora collections. eventually he grew tired and decided that it was time for him to leave. i suppose he though we got along well and so he asked for my name "Charlie Yeltsab" i lied, hoping i would never have to see this waste of human life again. He respoded with "Nice to meet you my name is chipstudent, i post stupid questions on a debating website.
Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)

The right to life is perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgments are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions.[1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James.[2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering. [1]Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, http://www.assistedsuicide.org... (accessed 4/6/2011) [2]Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk... (accessed 6/6/2011)
Wealth redistributed

Pro correctly pointed out that the rich pay the majority of the taxes. But this is already so without wealth redistribution. Whatever tax it is, flat or progressive, the rich will no doubt be paying the large majority of it. Pro has repeated several issues that I am going to try and address again. Pro keeps bringing up the gap and inequality. I want to redirect you to my first challenge. Why do you look at this as an issue of income inequality and not simply an issue of poverty? Doing so is once again more fit for socialism. Inequality is simply a reality. Poverty is also to a certain extent but often times there are ways one can climb out of poverty. The real way to do this is not to just hand people money. I proved this previously in greater detail about free money. The way to that, and I think Pro will agree, is jobs. In order for that to be done we actually need the wealthy to spend more to create businesses and invest in them. This is less effective if you take money away from the rich. If you allow the productive people to be productive and you don't penalize them for being productive through regulation or taxes, this allows the economy to prosper. Income redistribution just shifts the burden from those who are less productive onto those who are more productive. Next, I'd like to address your Bill Gates analogy: First of all I don't think this is a fair comparison and I think this gets down to the root of this debate. Proponents of income redistribution really only focus on nothing else other than equality of outcome. Now I would like to say that I agree with you Pro on a moral level that Bill Gates should definitely give some food to the other person the same way I would agree that a rich man should give some money to the poor. What is morally wrong is to put a gun to someone's head and force them to give the money they earned to somebody else. But what is really happening is that Bill Gates caught the food and the poor man should have known what he was dealing with and catch food before this happens. Pro is once again on to something though that I can agree with you. Pro explains that Bill Gates should provide "and education in how to hunt or do something else that can benefit you both. then you wouldn't be as reliant on Bill gates for resources". But the more restrictions you put on Bill Gates this stops this from happening. Bill Gates can team up with this man and perhaps pay him to hunt. Just imagine it with more people. Of course the economy isn't quite this simple but it boils down the way one thinks. But Pro wouldn't you agree that it is better for people to be reliant on the people they are working for than to be reliant on the government while they do nothing to earn it? Income redistribution stops the opportunity for people to CLIMB out of poverty as you mentioned. What agreement is more effective? One from the government a third party that has nothing to do with it? Or one from the actual parties involved? No more space:(
Wealth redistributed

tax brackets exist and you almost make it sound like that they don't and it would be considered stealing if they did. the rich already pay more in taxes. what I'm asking is that the people who are really rich pay more because theirs a great disparity between the two. At some point it actually matters how much more rich a person is. Which is something con doesn't adequately addressee. its not that they just have more its that they have absurdly much more compared to everyone else. it can be morally justified if theirs a need for it. lets say Bill Gates and you where on a island and he ate plenty of food and could store some for months. meanwhile your starving because you cant catch any food because bill gates already caught a bunch of it. At some point doesn't it becomes immoral not to give and split some of the resources up.now again I'm not saying they would have to be split 50/50. instead of hording food what if bill Gates gave you some so you have strength and provided and education in how to hunt or do something else that can benefit you both. then you wouldn't be as reliant on Bill gates for resources and you could spend time doing other things like trying to find a way to get rescued. in a system where most of the wealth is going to a small group its harder for people to climb out of poverty. what I'm proposing is that we redistribute the wealth so people have more opportunities to climb up. especially when we have enough capital and resources to do it. yes individuals matter but maybe we can set up a program to help prevent them form dropping out. what if that individual made a bad choice and now would like to go back to school to and try to make a better life for themselves. it could be difficult trying to get back on track. if its really difficult to climb up some people are going to see it as not worth pursuing. after all you could still get your degree and then be in crippling debt and not be able to find to start paying it all back. well the point I'm going to make is that you can give people benefits without making them free and destroying incentives. for example if you made school free they still would have to put in work and show up to class in order to receive any benefit. its not as if people will stop going to school and valuing it because it doesn't cost any money. surely by removing a barrier to entry more people would go to school. actually school doesn't even need to be more in order for their to be a benefit we could just make it cheaper for students to afford and make it more appealing. its not as if living in poverty is the desired state of being. people ant going to say I was going to go school but now that's its free and education is worthless. you could also provide job opportunities by setting up a program to repair infrastructure we could use it. again you use the money to provide people with opportunities and make it so its easier to do better in life. its not a exactly a free handout so the value isn't lost.
Wealth redistributed

Thank you for your response. A lot of what Pro argues in this round is applicable to what I said in the previous round. For example, his idea of a specific tax bracket. His justification was that they make over a million dollars. That doesn't change anything as I said last round. Nobody is entitled to somebody else's money just because they make more. I gave a hypothetical situation with Bill Gates which I think explains the point. You can't force people to give somebody else their own money. If you yourself want to make the decision to give money to the poor that is completely fine and praiseworthy. But you can't force me to give my money to somebody else. I also think you partially misunderstood my point about incentive. The reason it lowers incentive is not just because the poor look at the rich being penalized and it reduces their desire to be there, but rather that they don't need to work more if the money is being given to them. I will repeat the rule in business I said last round: If you tell someone something is free, they attribute no value to it. What's worse is you are giving people benefits to being poor. This is all part of a culture that has been developing that increases poverty. Welfare and the war on poverty is also relevant to this where under Lyndon Johnson people went door to door offering welfare provided that there is no man in the house. All this did was increase single motherhood rates. http://dailysignal.com... This is what I mean by incentive. People have an incentive to stay where they are because they are receiving benefits so they don't want to leave that state. Pro continues along the lines that it's okay to redistribute wealth if people are very rich. I want to reiterate that it doesn't make it any more moral or justified to steal somebody else's money. Pro was actually on to something at the end of his arguments but then he sways away from it. You mention schools as an example but this can be a possible solution for poverty more funding for these schools. Because many of the poor people do not finish High School. Even to this though I have the same point I first argued last round and that is about people making individual decisions and maintaining personal responsibility. It is not the governments job to ensure you are not poor.
Wealth redistributed

ok so I just want to take this round and argue a little loosely and expand my argument and view on the issue a little bit so I'm not going to use sources just yet. don't get caught up in any numbers I use I'm just trying to get a concept across. so what I propose is we set another tax bracket for higher wage earners that would only be directed at those who are super rich. like make over a million dollars a year rich. we already have a system where the more you make the higher your taxed yet it doesn't crush peoples incentive. I'm also proposing a small change for wealth to be redistributed I'm not asking for a huge amount of capital to just be given to people. The situation didn't get like this over night and ant be fixed overnight. I also don't expect this to eliminate all of poverty just that it could help improve the current situation. when your earnings are over 400k you live a very different lifestyle. the most important thing about this life style is that you can take remaining money you haven't spend and invest it and use it to gain even more earning. where as when you earning are low your mostly spending your money and its much harder to save. well what if a someone's whos making a million dollars a year gives up 20,000 dollars in their income and gave it to someone who was making under 20,000. the rich persons lifestyle probably wouldn't change much while the person who was struggling to get by now has a significantly increased quality of life. I think that when your in a state of poverty its can be difficult to climb out of it. not that its completely impossible but I think we need to take this money and redistribute to some the people I also want to take a little bit of time and discuss the future of where things are heading. right now I think its around that the top 10 percent controls almost 50 of the nations income and that number has been increasing for a while. now is their no point at which we distribute wealth? if the top 10 percent trolled 80 percent of the income would that still be fair to make sense to allow that? especially if your wage hasn't raised and due to inflation your income doesn't buy what it used it. at what point is it ok to step in and start redistributing wealth. I think where at that point when the middle class starts shrinking and we have many more people slipping into poverty and only a few making a ton more money. now where not a purely capitalist society we do have social programs and they make sense. when we have a public school systems everyone benefits even if you don't have a child. for example it can keep kids of the street and stop them from committing crimes. if we where to try and implement a program aimed at reducing poverty and increasing the quality of lives of people wouldn't everyone benefit.
Wealth redistributed

I'd like to establish that Pro does have the burden of proof as the instigator. To begin, I'd like to first explain why wealth distribution is ineffective. I am going to argue something that is actually pretty revolutionary to many people. That is that individuals make decisions and there are consequences for those decisions. I am very much against the way this debate was framed by Pro. Which brings me to my next point. I do not look at these issues as an inequality problem but rather a poverty problem. Equality is something more fit for a socialist society as oppose to a capitalist one. I understand that you said that you have more arguments but I have some challenges for you that you need to prove to fulfill your burden of proof. Firstly, why would wealth distribution stop people from being poor? I believe it is precisely the opposite especially in a capitalist society. Capitalism is based on people forcing themselves to work out of incentive as oppose to the government forcing them out of their own incentive. In other words, I would starve myself if I don't provide something of value to society in capitalism. This is would allows people to be productive. Redistributing wealth to the poor essentially removes that incentive at least to a certain degree. As someone involved in business I'd like to give a very basic rule from it: You tell people something is free they attribute no value to it. We can't tell people money is free because it ruins the whole basis of capitalism. Again, refer back to the basis of socialism which is that you are entitled to something because you exist whereas capitalism is you have to contribute to society. This brings me to my moral argument against which I feel resonates more with people. As mentioned before, socialism believes you are entitled to benefits. In our capitalist society the only thing we are really entitled to are certain rights. And those rights include the right to your earnings. No one has the right to take someone's money and this deems them a bad person. If you, I, and Bill Gates are in the room and we vote to take his money, that makes us nothing other than thieves. I outlined my challenges to you Pro and I await your response.
Are dogs better than cats

President Obama has declared on Twitter dogs are better, Dogs also protect better than cats,cats run away like cowards while loyal dogs will sacrifice their life. Look at so many movies that have dogs as the main charcter and now think of the amount of movies with cats. Dogs also don't do as stupids things. Cats always try to jump and fail. Their are so many videos on youtube. Ronald Regans last words were tell my dog I love him more than marley the cat (his cat) Ronald Regan was one of the greatest presidents also. On the other hand Dwight D Hisehoward loved cats and he was one of the worst presidents. Dogs also sense when you are stressed and cuddle next to you. Cats meow is also annoying. Dogs only bark when in harm and trying to tell you something. In addition people look at cat lovers as pathetic creatures while if you are a dog lover it is normal. I do not see how I can be wrong. Your name is also puppylover11 you like dogs better than cats REKT NUBE.I will provide more detail of need be.
Are dogs better than cats

Refutation of My OpponentCats are indeed protrayed as a the evil ones in movies, but this is often based on a social stigma that derives from the sheer intellect and independent nature of cats. My opponent again advances that dogs are depicted more positively than cats, which shows absolutely nothing about the two animals, but rather, about society's internal biases. In fact, a cat may be a better defender if say an intruder were to enter the house. A dog could be too easily bribed with food. Furthermore, while there are police dogs, this mainly stems from the fact that dog's are less independent from humans. Cat's intellect has different applications, such as rodent control or therapy for kids' depression. http://www.catster.com...Senses of Dogs Vs. Cats1.) Hearing- Cats can pick of on a wider range of sounds (55 Hz to 79 KHz) than dogs (67 Hz- 44KHz).2.) Sight- Cats can see in six times less light than humans, and dogs can only see in light 5 times less than humans.3.) Smell- The average cat has 200 million olfactory receptors, much more than the average dog.http://www.realclearscience.com...Ease of Care1. Cats make less noise than dogs, and by nature are calmer, so when you need the cat to be quiet for a social event, it will.2. Cats clean themselves, making cleaning them less of a pain. 3. Cats do not constantly ask for human attention. When the human needs it, they will provide it, but they don't beg. 4. Cats will accept it if you need to leave the house.Cats Are the Better Ecological PetIt requires 0.84 Hectaacres of land for food in a year. For cats, it's 0.15 hectaacres. http://www.realclearscience.com...Agility Cats are also more agile than dogs. They are able to climb and get into more difficult places than dogs. their spine has more vertabrae than dogs, allowing more agility. Cats also can save human life. Here's a story about a cat saving a human's life from a vicious dog.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Are dogs better than cats

Dogs do not need constant attention either. Their is pee pads for the dogs and their are different types of dogs. Some dogs want to be with you more some want to be left more alone it depends on what type of dog. Also why get a cat or dog if you do not want to be around it. Cats have history of hurting human and children. Not one kid has died from a dog but 103 have died to cats (kids) You say cats comfort but dogs are know for that. Their are therapy dogs that go to shelter homes for the homeless and older shelters. They help and calm the people down. Also milk is very expensive. Some people have trouble paying for that while all dogs drink water. Also dogs will eat anything unlike cats who are more picky. Your name is also puglover11 you agree with me.
Are dogs better than cats

MY ARGUMENT Ease Of Care 2.0: Cats do not whine when they need to go, they will just go to a litter box. Cats don’t require constant attention, making it far easier when you need to go to a store. Cats are fine keeping themselves occupied, but when you want them to, they will spend time with you. While “puppy love” involves drooling and face-licking, kitty will just snuggle with you THE CARING CAT: Cats are being employed to provide comfort and support to the 911 operators http://www.metronews.ca... The presence of the cat is very calming to the people who most need to keep calm in difficult situations. THE WORKING CATS Since colonial times, cats have been used for rodent control on ships, which may have saved many lives. Cats are very effective hunters. THE CARING CAT 2.0 CAT Cats also try to contribute to the household. When a cat leaves a dead rat by the house door, they are giving it to you as gift. While it may not be the prettiest gift itself, the cat makes an attempt to say thank you, unlike dogs. http://www.iflscience.com... LOWER MEDICAL COSTS For dogs, the average medical cost is about $290/year. For cats, this statistic is $160/year. Total costs amount to approximately $660/year. For cats, this is $450/year. http://www.diffen.com... CATS CAN BE POTTY TRAINED EASIER Cats are highly intelligent creatures, and as such, are much more easily potty trained than dogs. Most dogs need proper, often professional training and must be taken out regularly throughout the day. http://www.diffen.com... (PS: Cats can live in smaller spaces than dogs, such as apartments.) REFUTATION OF MY OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT 1.)Whether Obama has declared his support for dogs is irrelevant to this debate. 2.) If my opponent claims that cats run away "like cowards" he has not read the story provided in argument 1. 3.) Again, I repeat the same point. Dogs being viewed as "better in movies" does not tell us about cats or dogs. It tells us about the biases of people. 4.) Reagan's last words are unknown http://www.ijreview.com... 5.) Eisenhower was actually quite a good President considering the Interstate Highway system, end of the Korean War, and the desegregation of the armed forces, along with fighting to enforce Brown vs. BOE 6.) Cats are also de-stressing cuddlers, which is being used by 911 operators http://www.metronews.ca... 7.) Like I said before, cats can save people's lives and dogs can be vicious. You never see "Beware of Cat" signs. If you did not read the story of a cat saving a human's life from a dog, here it is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8.) Quote: . "Dogs only bark when in harm and trying to tell you something." No, dogs also bark when they are hungry, need to go out, and when they just want attention. 9.) I will ignore my opponent's ad hominem attack. I may very well be playing devil's advocate here. Furthermore, Pro challenged me to this debate. 10.) Cats are very common pets and cat owners are not viewed as "pathetic" s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="320" height="244" /> s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="314" height="277" />
will fdi help india

Thank you for accepting well i surveyed and found on the net that US accounts for 84% of the total income from the FDI stocks. This is only helping your country not us man what benefit are we getting also the most important that i am noticing is that the direct contact between the producers and the buyers is adding cost to the selling price of items. Vegetables,soft drinks etc are so costly making it more difficult for consumers. What will you say?