BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Peanut Butter Is Better Than Jelly

Its is a proven fact that although jelly was founded as preserves but with added sugars it is also less healthy for you. The sheer fact that peanut butter would be considered as a inferior of jelly is wrong. Washington Carver did the world a pure act of god. To this date we have more candy, and eatables that contain peanut butter and if you know ANYTHING about the consumer market its soul purpose is targeting what sells, if we see more peanut butter products on our market that means they sell. If peanut butter is selling so much why is jelly even considered to be greater. The lack of a market for jelly candy ( jelly beans contain NO jelly therefore cant be counted) an having an existing market of candy filled with peanut butter (Reese's, Snicker peanut butter ect.) as examples only help prove my point.
We should help those who want to commit suicide

I agree that there are multiple programs and different forms of treatment that could help a depressed individual, and that before being allowed to be put to death, a person should take psychological tests to ensure their decision is a proper one. But in the end, everyone is entitled to human rights. This includes 'dominion' [1] which states perfect control in the right of ownership; "including the power to alienate [2] and to do anything one wants with one's self" [3]. This means that your body belongs to you and that a person has the right to do as they wish with their body/person. Therefore, regardless of mental or emotional condition, a person has a right to themselves and their body in the law. I believe it should be the same with their death. So why condemn and reject a person who has every right to make that kind of decision? Instead, we should help them carry out their death in a safe way, rather than denying a person of basic rights that the law says they should have. Without the proper guidance, a person may decide to commit suicide in a way that could cause unnecessary damage to themselves and those around them. I would like to address my opponent's questions, "What about victims of school bullies? Should they get help to die because of a bully?" As I stated above, dominion gives a person perfect control in the right of ownership. And as my opponent refers to the bullies in her question as "school bullies", my rebuttal is that in most first world countries, children [4] are joint property of the community and their parent(s)/guardian(s). And therefore would not be allowed to independently make that decision. Thank you 1. found in - Human Laws, Human Lives, Department for Constitutional Affairs (2006) 2. Alienate (in terms of) LAW - transfer ownership of (property rights) to another person or group. 3. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu... 4. anyone under the age of 18 http://www.nspcc.org.uk...
We should help those who want to commit suicide

I will both agree and disagree with this debate. I am on the opposite spectrum compared to my opponent, where I believe we should not help those who want to commit suicide freely; but help those who are in physical pain. To argue my position, I like to take a common quote used when being against suicide. The quote states: "It is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Rather than preventing life from getting worse, it eradicates the possibility of it ever getting better"(1). Suicide happens because of feeling "drpressed in society, which I agree is sad; but why put more focus on trying to kill the person, instead of putting more focus on trying to help the person? There are multiple programs to help individuals, like phone lines, and psychological treatment that can be used. As well as the fact that there is medication that can be used to support a depressed individual, and the best part is that the cost is not to much. The reason why the cost is cheap enough is because of the percentage of depressed people within the United States being 10%. That is pretty low, and can resolve that issue with a heavy focus on helping the individual.I will agree that Euthanasia should be used to people who are in physical pain, and are stated to die soon. But also I wish to ask my opponent a question before I end this round, what about victims of school bullies? Should they get help to die because of a bully?Sources:1. http://elitedaily.com...2. http://www.goodrx.com...
We should help those who want to commit suicide

I think that everyone should be given a choice, especially when it comes to their death. Suicide should be more socially accepted and we should help those who want to commit suicide so they can end their lives in a safe and mannered way (or however they wish if otherwise). This concept is similar to euthanasia, but I don't believe that a person needs to be suffering physically to be allowed to end their life. People should be allowed a good death.
Inheritance taxes should be abolished.

----Tanks---- Thanks for the compliment brian_eggleston. You have been quite the formidable opponent, so I means a lot coming from you. I appreciate it. ----Counterarguments and Conclusion---- My opponent begins his argument by asserting that money inherited from the death tax would be spent selfishly. I can only assume (because my opponent did not directly say so) that instead, he wants the money to the government-- a government that spends 400+ billion nonexistent dollars every year, while having a 9.4+ trillion dollar deficit. Surely, the money is much better inherited by the (future) company owners-- that was my argument. An argument that my opponent has never addressed. My opponent then goes on to catch my source, as I accidentally identified the wrong Nicholas Ferguson. I am truly embarrassed. However, my argument still stands. Why does my opponent's argument (that the wealthy do not pay enough taxes) rely SOLELY on 1 quote from 1 lawyer? Because my opponent could not find any better source to prove his claim. Please brian_eggleston, reread the following argument that you never addressed: "In America for instance, the top 1% of income earners pay more income tax than the bottom 90%. The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of ALL taxes. And while 'The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States... they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes'." My opponent then goes on to address my moral argument-- it is wrong to steal from the rich. He cites Robin Hood: "If you, my dear voters, believe that Robin Hood would have been a bigger hero if he had gone about Sherwood Forest mugging peasants and handing over the proceeds of his crimes to the Sheriff of Nottingham, in order to make the evil rural toff even richer than he already was..." However, his Robin Hood example is completely untranslatable (and not to mention fictional). The peasants were dying from poverty! In today's modern society, there is very little of such suffering: There are shelters, government programs, churches, and many many more alternatives. Obviously, his Robin Hood proof does not hold. But there's more! He asserts that a thousand children pass away because of the rich evading taxes. Again, I question his sources-- a simple charity's statistics? Besides their obvious bias, they do not have the resources to conduct surveys on such a complex issue. Instead, I urge the audience to review my statistics-- statistics that are (for the most part) from the US government. Again, it comes down to sources. I've got renowned economics professors, an award winning think tank, and government statistics on my side. My opponent? A quote from a lawyer. And a single charity's statistics. Who are you, the audience, going to trust? Thank you for your time. I'm sure both brian_eggleston and I appreciate it.
Inheritance taxes should be abolished.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my opponent on the consistently high quality of his debate. I mean this quite genuinely, and I hope I don't appear to be patronising, but this is especially outstanding as my opponent is still just a teenager (as he pointed out in the comments section). However, I should like to remind the voters that all is fair in love and war - and debating - and so the best man (or boy) should win, based on the overall force of his arguments, regardless of his age! In my opponent's response he referred to my assertion that shareholders benefiting from free money accrued to them from inheritance taxes would not necessarily be spent altruistically was unsupported by any references. I don't believe any research has been conducted into the matter and I believe that is because it is self-evident. Think about it. If you found a lottery ticket on the ground and it turned out to be the winning ticket and you collected a cheque for ten million dollars, would you donate it all to your local school and hospital? Some of you might give some of it to good causes, but I bet (but cannot prove) that most of you would keep at least some of it for you and your friends and family. Talking about references, by the way, my opponent provided the following link to support his argument: http://www.nicholasfergusonpaintings.com...... Nice paintings, yes, but how does some posh bloke flogging his artwork online support my opponent's argument? The rest of my opponent's argument reaffirms his belief that imposing inheritance tax on high-value estates amounts to "stealing" from the rich. This is a moral argument – a matter of personal conscience. If you, my dear voters, believe that Robin Hood would have been a bigger hero if he had gone about Sherwood Forest mugging peasants and handing over the proceeds of his crimes to the Sheriff of Nottingham, in order to make the evil rural toff even richer than he already was, then you should vote for my opponent. If, on the other hand, you know that the rich already routinely evade paying taxes, thus putting an extra financial burden on ordinary, hardworking families, and that tax cheats cost the lives of 1,000 children per day, and that estate taxes are one of the few opportunities society has to oblige grasping, cheating super-rich to pay their fair share for a change, then you should vote for me. http://www.independent.co.uk... I thank you in advance for your kind support.
Inheritance taxes should be abolished.

----Flawed Premise---- Okay, okay. First of all, my opponent's premise for this debate is deeply flawed. This supposï¿½d Nigerian lawyer my opponent speaks of has contacted millions of Americans. Simply, it is a scam to steal your money. I strongly advise my opponent not to send this Nigerian $5000 because it is highly doubtful that he would get $13530051 in return. ----Counterarguments---- All my opponent has done in his opening argument (besides offer a humorous anecdote) is provide his position. He has given no argument whatsoever for me to rebut. So eat babiez. ----Arguments---- The arguments I will use for this debate are as follows. 1) The death tax would mean double taxation at two different time periods. Property would be taxed once on purchase and then again on death. This is referred to as double dipping which is not only logically wrong, but legally wrong as well. 2) It is true that the death tax only applies to the very wealthy. However, why give the money to a government known for over spending and ridiculous pork budgets, when it could be used for further investment in America's biggest companies? More money to these companies would mean lower prices, higher salaries, and a general betterment of human life. 2a) In following with the above argument, repealing the death tax would remove the disincentive for company owners not to expand their business later in life.[1] In some cases, expanding one's value later in life would be discouraged in an otherwise expanding business. Instead, these company owners would try to use tax evasion techniques such as shifting resources, liquidating assets, gift transfers, trusts, and other tax free investments. In other words, the death tax stunts the growth of America's companies. Again, repealing the death tax would mean lower prices, higher salaries, and a general betterment of human life. 3) The death tax undermines the intent of a person's assets upon death. What about little Billy who had 40%+ of his inheritance stolen by the US government? Huh?! Look at Billy's sad face! 4) The amount of the tax is ridiculous and is only going to be raised. Estates are taxed from anywhere from 37% to 55%![2] How would some failing privately-owned companies possibly survive after a hit like that? The death tax encourages the downfall of many American companies. 5) Morally, it is simply wrong to tax a person's death. A family is already grieving, so who are we to take possible millions of dollars from that family? That's like watching your uncle die only to have the doctor steal your wallet. The death tax is just plain wrong. ----Conclusion---- Thus far, my opponent has not provided one single argument. I have provided five. The winner so far is obvious. Thank you for your time. VOTE PRO!!! ----References---- [1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.policyalmanac.org...
Inheritance taxes should be abolished.

Lets say you receive an email from a lawyer in Nigeria informing you that a wealthy relative (that you never knew you had) had been killed in a road accident in Lagos and has left their entire fortune to you, and after sending the lawyer a transaction fee of $5000 he transfers $13,530,051 into your bank account. I believe that this windfall, like all unearned capital gains, should be subject to taxation so that society as a whole can share in the good fortune of those people lucky enough to receive large amounts of cash or assets from wealthy benefactors.
Islam Is The True Religion

VOTING ISSUESI won't spend a lot of time refuting this. 1. Logical Fallacies; ignoratio elenchi, anecdoctal evidence(s), circular logic, strawman2. Copy and Paste, Plagiriasm; a crime AGAINST intellectual dignity of all man. I refuse to debate anyone who does this, without citing it proper.3. All of my arguments are affirmed, at the moment. The opponent has done nothing to even attempt to refute my arguments, instead presenting other arguments which seem to lead away from the true topic of this debate, on the TRUTH FACTOR of Islam.May the opponent learn that:NEVER MAKE LOGICAL FALLACIES AND JUSTIFY THE USAGE OF THEMNEVER COPY AND PASTE IN A DEBATEAnd ALWAYS STAY ON TOPIC.
Islam Is The True Religion

I am bored of this. Firstly, plagirism:"or is it logical that such a religion should impose conditions that have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God, such as baptism, or belief in man as a savior, or an intermediary. Within the central principle of Islam and its definition (the surrender of one"s will to God) lie the roots of Islam"s universality. Whenever man comes to the realization that God is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to God, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise. Consequently, anyone at any time in the most remote regions of the world can become Muslim, a follower of God"s religion"Is directly copy and pasted from this: http://www.gawaher.com..."At this point we might comment briefly on two other religions that claim to be the true path. Nowhere in the Bible will you find God revealing to Prophet Moses" people or their descendants that their religion is called Judaism, or to the followers of Christ that their religion is called Christianity. In other words, the names "Judaism" and "Christianity" had no divine origin or approval. It was not until long after his departure that the name Christianity was given to Jesus" religion."Is directly copy and pasted from this: http://www.islamreligion.com...In fact: http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... All results obtained from: http://www.paperrater.com...I refuse to debate a person who has stolen information from other sites; committing logical fallacies, and defending sophism is one, but outright c and p ing is another. This is horrible conduct; henceforth, I call upon all voters to vote against the opposition, for committing the largest crime that an intellectual could commit; plagirism.
suiside

The flip side of the coin is that if you truly love your friends and family you won't cause phsychological devastating pain in their lives by ending your own. The debate is on whether or not suicide is selfish (round 1.) Antidepressants, mindful meditation, receiving counseling, getting involved in charitable projects and more have been very effective in making a depressed individual happy again. Therefore by believing suicide is the one and only way to relieve your pain is not only selfish but a false belief too .
suiside

I accept. I'm assuming this round is for arguments. Essentially your argument is this: 1) Suicide is not selfish because the person killing himself is in pain. The only way to relieve the pain is through suicide. 2) then from 1) any person wanting you to be kept alive is selfish because they won't allow you to ease your pain by suicide. My argument: I argue that suicide is selfish because suicide is not the only way to relieve pain whether it be phsychological or physical pain. Medication is very effective for both phsychological and physical pain, and counseling is very effective at relieving psychological pain. Since suicide affects friends, family, neighbors, and others, it is selfish to ease your pain by causing pain to others because there are methods that don't require throwing this pain on others. Therefore suicide is selfish.
suiside

The pain of losing someone to suicide is much greater than losing someone that had a long-lived life and died of natural causes. In conclusion suicide is selfish because I've shown that physical and psychological pain can be reduced by medication, counseling, therapy, meditation and more. By choosing to end your life, you selfishly inflict major psychological pain on those around you instead of seeking options available to reduce your pain without causing pain to others. With this in mind, suicide is selfish.
suiside

yes pain is brought to those around the person who is killing them selfish but they will get that pain if we die at a later time as well as you said every person will die eventually maybe it is the time of the person who is committing suicide. as a conclusion i believe that suicide is not selfish because they are in more pain then we could ever imagine or they could ever forget yes it may hurt thous around them but every person will die and cause pain in the ones that love them.
suiside

In my last post you didn't respond to my assertion that suicide would cause enormous psychological pain to friends and family. Do you think that it would? Joy is a form of optimism. Every accomplishment in this world can't be taken to the grave with you. Value your experiences, love, and friendships while they last. Every person will die eventually. Don't sell yourself short of valuable experiences in your future. Eat, drink, and be merry and see life as a fleeting gift and you'll be much more joyful. Serotonin imbalances in your brain can make you feel down, so by taking delayed capsule serotonin capsules will help this imbalance (some forms of antidepressants. Again, I'll refer back to the main point of this debate: is suicide selfish? Yes, it is. Suicide causes severe psychological pain to others. Also, there are many other ways to help reduce the pain in your life besides taking it. Taking this into consideration, suicide is selfish.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crim jus

1) My opponent forfeited Round 2, therefore I extend the attacks on my opponent's position with no opposition. 2) The AFF had demonstrated that the abuse of illegal drugs should indeed be treated as a medical matter rather than a criminal matter. 3) Not only is it the right thing to do, it also serves a greater good by affording drug abusers to obtain the medical & psychological treatment they need to have the potential to become productive citizens again. 4) Throwing them in prison (criminal matter) does nothing for the drug abuser, but rather increases the tax payer's financial burden, while offering no chance at rehabilitation. 5) The cost of rehab is much cheaper than imprisonment. 6) Rehabilitated drug abusers get jobs, pay taxes, and add to the GDP. Thus the resolution is AFFIRMED, I respectfully request a PRO ballot. Thank you to Gothicdead and the judges.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crim jus

I will address points made by my opponent, and then attack my opponent's case. I concur that someone should try to intervene, however, as the resolution states, it is more of a medical matter than a criminal matter. Drugs relate to medical. As my opponent stated, drugs do have a PHYSICAL repercussion, which should be treated by a doctor, not a jailer. In jail, drug users have access to drugs, but not adequate access to treatment. This only exacerbates the existing problem and offers little to no healing. Opponent's observation. I concur and stipulate that the justice department does indeed attempt to bust drug cartels. Unfortunately, drugs are made from plants, which is a function of agriculture. Therefore, drugs will never be eliminated, thus people will always have access to drugs. It does not eliminate drugs nor does it make drugs significantly less accessible. Rebuttal to prison or rehab. The resolution does not address drug dealers, it addresses drug abusers. Rregardless, I have demonstrated through CBA that it is more cost effective to treat abusers in rehab than it is to imprison them. Rebuttal to the prison system statement. The aff will concur and stipulate that some people will not accept help. Again, I refer to CBA. Putting them in prison still is not cost effective. Placing them in residential rehab is more cost effective and provides a better opportunity for a successful recovery. Rebuttal to opponent's last statement. I admit that is certainly possible for rehab cases to revert back to their old ways. Does that mean we throw in the towel? Is throwing them away the right thing to do? Who has not repeated a mistake? Does that mean we give up on them? I have addressed all of my opponent's challenges. What I have not done is attack my opponent's case, because no case has been presented. Voter issues: 1) As this is the L-D topic, it should resemble an L-D format. 2) My opponent has not offered a Value Premise 3) My opponent has not offered a Value Criterion 4) My opponent has offered no contentions to support her case 5) My opponent has not presented a case 6) Although new information should not be admissible beyond the initial round, I will allow my opponent to build a Negative Constructive in Round 2. Thank you