BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
castor oyl has too large an ego.

do you know about thimble theater? you probably do. after all, your profile says you are 100 years old, so you were born in 1916 or 1917. you were a kid when the comic strip came out. you probably read it. i always assumed you were at least 400 years old. that army you destroy in the commercial looks medieval, so i thought you were older than a hundred years. hell, there's nothing abnormal about being 100. lots of people get to be that age. still, you are the legend 27, so i guess you are a lot cooler. how about the time popeye and castor are on an island, and castor continually woos fanny foster, even though she says she doesn't love him? or the time that he starts his detective agency-he calls it the most efficient in the world, whereas glim and merlock jones are just as good. or i think so, anyway. then, of course, he cruelly asks olive to get a dime's worth of longitude so he and ham can slip off on a ship. he won't let women be sailors. i call that sexism. i think that originally, castor was the control freak, and popeye was the guy who always saw around his plots. take, for instance, when castor tells popeye to do the work of twelve men and popeye says he wants the pay of twelve men. castor says no. castor has an enormous ego. i await your next argument.
castor oyl has too large an ego.

i thought i already made that quite clear. he is the brother of olive oyl from e.c. segar's acclaimed comic strip, thimble theater, and he was the main protagonist, along with Ham gravy, until Popeye came along in 1929. you might note that when trying to get Popeye a ring match, he calls Popeye a dock rat and a flea brained nincompoop. he cares only for money, and he thinks he's all that. he thinks that Popeye is ugly, and yet he's a midget with a billiard ball nose. i await your next argument.
Euthanasia

I understand that Euthanasia means "good death", but A good death had A completely different meaning back then. When someone would talk about Euthanasia, or Euthanizing someone, it would often be A priest, and he was implying that he was going to distribute the sacrament of "anointing of the sick", not end someones life. It was more of A way to prepare someone so that they could have A "good death". And I understand that it can be performed painlessly, but isn't life more than just trying to avoid pain? Indeed there are two types Active and Passive, but for those who choose Active Euthanasia, how "conscious" of their decision are they really? Most of these individuals, approximately 93%, are suffering from some sort of mental illness. Particularly depression. They've lost the hope to live and life has become rather pointless in their minds. They are suffering from A chemical imbalance and need help. http://www.life.org.nz... You say that these people could be completely happy, but as I just said 93% of people who choose this path are not. What if instead of "ending them on A High not" by killing them, we treat them with Love and try to reverse this chemical imbalance that they are suffering from. By loving these people and showing them that their life truly has A purpose, wouldn't that be much more humane and beneficial for that persons life and all those around them, opposed to completely ending it? Also, simply because I say that suicide is the final decision does not mean that I don't believe anything comes after this life. It simply means that by choosing suicide there are no more choices.. Because they are dead. I would like to say that the question, "Oh it seems you will be in pain for a lot of years, let me just end that now for you?" Is actually A question that people are beginning to receive quite often in countries and states where Euthanasia has been legalized. This question is even being pushed onto children in places like Belgium where people want children to be able to choose whether or not to kill themselves. What if we took A different approach to loving people, all people the way these people did :
Euthanasia

Could someone please tell me the good that comes from Euthanasia? I don't understand what good can come from killing someone. Life is A beautiful gift. We are called to love one another and respect each other as human beings. Even when someone is suffering immense pain and anguish, life can still be full of joy and happiness. Since Euthanasia is the end all choice and after that decision there are no more decisions... Why are we promoting it? It seems to me that we should be focusing more on trying to pull out and show these people what good can come from life, by loving them cherishing their life as A blessing and making their final days here full of love, instead of focusing on the unfortunate situation they are in and then killing them. It all seems so backwards to me.
Euthanasia

I see that we have come to a decision. You believe that Euthanasia should not be legal due to the moral grounds and the "intention to end their own life". However as stated before, all of Euthanasia is not dependent on wanting to die, but maybe some old person just doesnt want to have to go through yet another surgery just so that he can live a few more weeks so that he can get another surgery and so forth. It may not be that the patient just wants to end their life, but more so their medical treatment. That is what Passive Euthanasia is, and I feel we both feel this is right. Because if someone were to go home and just spend their dying moments with family without taking any treatment to keep them alive, then that would be infact Passive Euthanasia. It may not be the "Passive Euthanasia" that you have in your mind, but it still would be classifyed as such. And Again, I am not saying that God is not a legitamate moral background to use, I believe in God aswell. However I would like to state, that not everyone does believe, hence the argument being proposed by you would not pertain to everyone. (Well it does, but some people don't believe it does.) So we are left with the standing of the "Worlds" view, and this is about whether Euthanasia should be legal or not. So to the "World" it is indeed not immoral. As for the Reason Euthanasia should be legal: It would allow a patient to deny treatment needed to prolong their life. Meaning that situation where you are lying down and spending your final days with your family without treatment would only be legally possible if Euthanasia was legal, or Passive Euthanasia was atleast. Active Euthanasia, I do hear your side, and it comes down to each persons individual belief. I personally would not go through Active Euthanasia, but for others they may not see anything wrong with it. So Base Line: Euthanasia isnt just about killing yourself for relief. Sure that may be apart of it, however it also allows one to choose they way they die, without having to be forced through treatments that takes away time from their family. Active Euthanasia may be immoral, but it may not to others. It depends on their belief system. Passive Euthanasia, we can already see this can entail much more than just the intent to kill yourself, but instead the intent to spend your few final moments with family rather than a surgery room. For these reason I believe Euthanasia should in fact be legal and available for usage.
Euthanasia

I see where you are coming from. However most of your debate relies on the fact God exist (Not denying this, however I try to make my arguments appeasable to all groups so they can relate.) As for no one having the right to end their life: Isnt it our life to live? And knowing everyone dies eventually it would seem more logical to be aloud to end it when you so desire, instead of living a longer more painful life for the same result. Also, just because Euthanasia would legal, does not mean everyone will under go such a process. It would only be for those who desire it. Yes we can try to make people's lives happier, but in the cases where no matter how hard we try the person is still in pain and cannot have any relief, we should give the OPTION of Euthanasia. For Passive Euthanasia, that is no way close to suicide, it is simply deciding not to take painful treatment or any treatment. It is no different then what you are doing right now, you are slowly dying as we speak, every human being is. Passive Euthanasia allows on to reject treatments that cause pain and damage other parts of the body just to keep the whole body alive. On a biblical note, we are not suppose to damage our bodies because they are the temple of God, so adding so many drugs and surgeries to our bodies, not only defile our body, but the drugs can affect our minds too. Passive Euthanasia allows one to die in the most natural way, just die when you die. Active Euthanasia may not be religiously correct as it is ending your life immediately and on your own terms. However there is no reason that someone who does not believe in a God would not choose this route. But either way, continously prolonging your life through drugs and surgeries to the point your lose many of your bodies functions just to live a little longer is also biblically wrong. I will compromise the fact that Acitve Euthanasia may not be morally correct for all people, however for some it is just fine. Passive Euthanasia is morally friendly to all. No Euthanasia can be seen as either a violation of human rights as it forces people against their will to continously live through days of treatment without end. Of course not everyone will need Euthanasia but for those who do, it should be there. Atleast Passive Euthanasia, Active is as shown before, possibly immoral depending on the person. But that is exactly why the patient gets to decide what they want. Whether they want Active or Passive is up to them, but they should have the choice to escape the endless treatments.
should bullies be convicted of manslaughter if bullying another kid and makeing him kill himself

You should be convicted of Manslaughter. As I said in my past statement you practically put the gun in the victims hand even if you're a little fifth grader your killing someone. You don't have to be incarcerated at the young age but going back to you're statement the age. What is the legal age to be incarcerated? 11 is your answer you'd pretty much be in the fifth grade by now and trust me I personally seen this happen a boy hanged himself because of a bully no one did anything about it but the parents called the police up and said what is to be done about this manslaughter the cops said the bully was only 10 years of age and they said not until next years and that boy who died was my best friend. So therefore I agree on why the bully should be convicted of manslaughter. I rest my case.
should bullies be convicted of manslaughter if bullying another kid and makeing him kill himself

My opponent has intentionally left out any sort of punctuation in his argument in order to confuse me out of the win. This is the second misconduct that as occured in the debate. Pro claims he 'used me as an example' but I have never been charged with manslaughter and t claim I have is absurd to say the least. In regard to Pro's challenge on my 'website', it is simply a link that refers to the research conducted in The Institute for Education in London. This has nothing to do with the credibility of the website itself. In response to his question, yes, I do trust The Institute for Education in London; there is no reason not to. He then asks me whether I am using 'personnel experience', I do not know what it is, but I do not think I am. Pro makes no further rebuttals against my mens rea argument other than weakly claiming I used a website, which would be a fact. Getting help with problems such as depression and abuse in the family is a much larger issue than Pro seems to realise. I will only point out, however, that according to Pro's argument, children and teens who suicide did not have to go down that path either, they could have gotten help from either parents or teachers. That renders his argument invalid. Pro has also failed to rebuff the whole idea of rehabilitation rather than punishment. The compounded insults and misconduct of Pro and his weak arguments make it clear who has the stronger arguments in this debate.
should bullies be convicted of manslaughter if bullying another kid and makeing him kill himself

Yes I said the same thing because you sir are using websites yes I know your using resources but are they factual can you trust them I guess what i am saying is are you using personnel experience no your using website and I did not insult you I used you as an example yes bullies are victims to but they didn't have to choose that path to bully they could of gotten help and hating school what is this elementary you don't go to school to play and get in trouble you go to learn
marijuana should be legal man....

My opponent has failed to answer the simple questions that I asked him, I can not prove a point if I do not know where one stands. Let me give you another chance at having a good debate. You claim that you live in Jamaica, Are you talking about Legalizing it there or in the United States? There does come a point to where some things are not allowed. Your religion was founded by a random American from Organ who's name was Bobby Henderson. If I made a 'religion' that says that I must kill children every Sunday to reach god, so if someone makes it illegal to murder, that is as you say 'discriminating'. Let me tone it down a bit, what if I made a religion and I said that using meth is how we get to god, should we legalize that to? I am sure that you have heard of the killing on 9/11, http://en.wikipedia.org... The terrorist did because of their religion, (though not all Muslims are terrorist) should the ones who did that go free because there religion says that it is good to kill? Recently their was a shooter a fort hood (an army base in Texas), the guy who did it is Muslim, the President of the USA said "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor" http://news.yahoo.com... You said you are not talking about random kids getting high, but if marijuana is legalized, then what do you think will happen, just because your religion says it is right will not stop others from buying it.
marijuana should be legal man....

Due to my religion I wish to legalise marijuana. To argue against this is to insult me however I am open to all points of view. ... My opponent can start.... My esteemed debater man.... I consider marijuana to be an important part of my religion so it is discrimination against us to ban it. I am not talking about random kids getting high, it is intended to help us reach the trance state. This is important as stated -"The movement encompasses themes such as the spiritual use of cannabis, colloquially known as marijuana" Wikipedia. Our religion has the same rights as any other we demand our rights.
marijuana should be legal man....

Hello BongMan, Thank you for starting this debate. I would like to use my round to ask you a few questions. 1. Do you think marijuana should be legal for medical purposes or for pleasure? 2. What are your thoughts on marijuana's harmful effects? 3. Should there be an age limit on who can take the drug? 4. Should there be a limit on how much of the drug one can buy? 5. Please, please do not be offended, but I realized that you are apart of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in order for me to have a full debate with you, I would like to ask you if that is what you fully believe, and if you really do live in Jamaica. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
Moment of Silence

The moment of Silence is the moment of silence. The pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the topic. It is not unconstitutional to have a moment of silence in school. The way our school does it, we have the pledge of allegiance on Mondays. The rest of the week we have about 30 seconds of a moment of silence. In conclusion, comparing a 30 second time to collect thoughts for a time period where you'll hardly even get anything done except complain about how tired you are, what would you rather choose?
Moment of Silence

Okay, let me make something clear, my moment of silence includes the pledges and stuff. It takes like 5 minutes. And I believe if someone cares that much, they can do that on their own time. The dinner table, at lunch, during free periods. I get that it does honor the fallen soldiers, but think of the people who aren't religious. If you consider the moment of silence a time to pray, or reflect on their day, well then some people might find that offensive. And for the reflection part, if it's thirty minutes, how would someone reflect? I reassure you, not many people care, and if they are religious, they can pray during breakfast or the night before.
Moment of Silence

I am going to revert back to the fact that the moment of silence is literally 30 seconds long. It can't be that boring. You are right that we have days honoring soldiers but I, along with many others, agree that even days celebrated for them are never enough. They risked their lives and all the school asks for is 30 seconds of the student's time to be quiet and respectful. Maybe people such as you don't care about it but others do. It is an opportunity to have some peace of mind. Is that so horrible?
Moment of Silence

I disagree! The moment of silence is about 30 seconds to a minute long, I'm pretty sure you're not going to learn any life changing information in 30 seconds. Besides, this time could be used to honor American soldiers who are busy fighting in other countries and sometimes can't even be there when their child is born. I feel like they should get a moment of respect. If you're religious, you can have the opportunity to pray for a family member or friend who is in need.
Moment of Silence

I believe students should have the choice of a moment of silence. I mean, at my school we do it, but the only reason I say it is because it wastes more time. Which is another reason we shan't have it, it's a waste of time. The students don't care. It's more of an obligation. I mean sure it's to recognize our flag, etc. But it's not necessary. My school does the moment of silence to our country and the state we live in along with our school pledge. It wastes so much time!
Is Cam Newton a good QB

I do not believe my opponent in Round 1. everything im about to put is on the site i posted in round 1. "In a league with guys that are mobile, nobody"s mobility is feared more than Newton"s. In a league with strong-armed quarterbacks, no arm is stronger either." He does well in the pocket and he"s a good passer but when things break down or when they have really good coverage he can do a good job extending plays. At times it may look like playground football, but Newton would be the guy you would pick first for your team. At 6-foot-6 and 250 pounds (allegedly), he runs like a gazelle in the open field and like a fullback when his team needs the extra yard. I believe we should Give Mike Shula and the rest of the Panthers coaching staff a lot of credit for constructing an offense that plays to his numerous strengths.
Is Cam Newton a good QB

Cam Newton is a good QB. I will agree with that. But cam newton is on a downwards slum. Newton is the NFL"s 27th-ranked passer after he was tied for seventh in 2015. Only San Francisco"s Colin Kaepernick (54.5) has a lower completion percentage than Newton (54.7). So the "Best" QB in the nfl is actually tied with the worst. 2010. over 4,000 passing yards. 2016. only 3,000 ish. this means by like 2020 his yards will be 2,000
Does the Christian God Exists

We branched off along with African apes (gorilla, chimpanzee) with a common ancestor (arboreal mammal) more than 5 million years ago! I did not mean to imply that you really think people evolved from lions. I however will try to explain or re explain my theory.. Keep in mind I do not plan on this being the debate winner.... Our morals have become perverted due to the increase of population. I used the example of sex. You can clearly see the perversion of sexual morality when sex at one point was necessary for survival has now become a bane to our society. (Over population, pornography, STDs) Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me but I am not using any sources other than I got the idea from Richard Dawkin's! This next statement is tantamount to my argument... MORALITY IS SECULAR! We did not get our morals from the bible. In fact you can find that the bibles ethical standards are low.. I would even go as far as to say that if the human population did not have morality.. they would have eaten each other alive and we would not exist. The bible was not some magical catalyst for civility.. in fact it seemed to mostly be used to manipulate or oppress! Sam Harris made a great case for secular morality with his pregnant stomach kicking example. You make an interesting case with a lion becoming a vegetarian but without data to show evidence of this unlikely evolution of the lion, we are left with only conjecture. It does not lend itself to inventing a God to explain the mystery behind anything! It is just what the human mind has always been good for (Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, etc) Using morality as evidence for God does not pan out due to the callous nature of existence! Not to mention the malevolent acts of God in the old testament! (Mass genocide or Filicide : the act of killing ones own child, torture...etc)! This does not sound like a benevolent God to me. But it does illustrate the ignorance that dominated during that time! (Ignorance can be mistaken for immorality) Still waiting for those 9 words to prove God's existence.. cheers
Does the Christian God Exists

According to Wkipedia MORALITY is the differentiation of intentions decisions and actions between those that are "good" and those that are "evil" or "bad" and the Golden Rule states "One should treat others as one would wish others to treat oneself. " Now I believe everyone dose not wish to be murdered stolen from or tortured. Even the smallest animals have the notion that they do not want to be hurt or killed. zebras monkeys dogs and shrimp know when they are alive and strive their best to stay alive. This concludes that animals and even shrimp must know they are alive and do not wish to be dead or else they would not wish to even try to live. So I believe that there was no time in earths history that its inhabitants ever wished to be murdered or harmed in any way. So here's a question why would we as a species ever be hesitant in killing someone and why would murder ever be a crime? Think about it we know we don't our self's want to be killed them why would we care if someone was murdered we would say "well at least it wasn't me" but today most people after hearing that news would feel sad for that person even if he was a nasty person. So where did that morality come from why would we treat others the way that we would want to be treated? Let say we did evolved from lions now lions sometimes kill there own and hunt for food to survive. What logically situation can you come up with to explain how some lions who whould kill their own kind and hunt animals just to. survive change suddenly to a creature with some what good morals. Even if the lion evolved to such an superior stats that it no longer needs to eat meat but can now eat vegetables what is telling the lion that killing is wrong. The lion knew all its live by instinct how to hunt how to survive and how to lead a pride. So how did he get the idea he did not just think it everything he knew to that point had told him not to think that so what made him have morals ? Here is the answer someone must have told put that idea into the envoled lion head someone who knew right between wrong to the full extent. Someone like God