BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as a mercy killing

Anywhere it calls a murder a mercy killing, the reality is this: a hate crime. Calling a hate crime a mercy killing gives way to much sympathy to the killer, and devalues the victim. It also often affects the verdict and gives the murderer a break, while reinforcing the idea that the group of people the victim is from is inherently worth less. I am mostly referring to in cases of parents or caregivers murdering a disabled person,but other cases may be discussed.
There is no such thing as a mercy killing

Regarding your note: I both put this in philosophy for a reason, and am trying to keep my emotions in check but because of the nature of the debate and the fact that it is personal, it is hard. Killing someone isn't really what could be considered a treatment option because treatment, by definition is: the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder. Euthanasia is not a treatment, if only because it does nothing to combat the illness the person is facing, what it does is to speed up death. I would also argue that in the case of someone giving consent, that do to the situation of which they would consider such a thing they are not in a proper state of mind to do so. For instance if their condition is painful, something they are not used to, they might wish for death simply because they have not come to terms with it yet. Most people who experience chronic pain don't wish for death. The reason hate comes into this is simple: The suicide or killing of other people is not regarded the same way. The fact that their life is regarded as less worth living, shows a clear devaluing. Hate can and does often look like compassion or empathy, but really is pity. The distinction is important however, I can tell you first hand how much it sucks to be pitied, it is very devaluing. It simply as well cannot be in someone's best interest to be euthanized, because it is final. Death is final, and to bring it on purposefully isn't providing an solutions. I would also like to state that Involuntary euthanasia (Illegal and legal depending on country)is also more common than you may think, in many ways and many groups of disabled or ill people, even if their life wasn't threatened. Even children.
There is no such thing as a mercy killing

Note: Please argue with something more than just petty emotions.You haven't shown any proof or evidence to support your claim, please do so in the argument below or I'll just forfeit. empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. hate: feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone In the words of Jack Kervorkian, "She made the decision that her existence had lost its meaning. And you cannot judge that". As you have not made it clear or did not imply that what the definition was, I'd look to go in terms of Google: the killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, typically by the administration of large doses of painkilling drugs. By definition of medical news today, there are two different types of euthanasia. 1. Voluntary euthanasia is done by the victim of the situation, it is done with consent and has been legalized in many countries. 2. Involuntary euthanasia (Probably the type of euthanasia you were regarding), is conducted without consult. The decision is typically made by another person and is in the case of people who are incapable of making the decision for themselves. In both cases, it has been made clear that the decision would be done with consult if possible, involuntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia are done with the best of intentions. If consent was given, how can it be murder, it is simply just another treatment option. The right to die is a constitutional safeguard, it is guaranteed with the same rights promised years ago. You can look upon California's legalized End of Life Senate bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... I'd now like to have a thought experiment with Rachael Smiths and Jones: (1) If a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then in some cases that person"s death is in his or her own interest. (2) If a person"s death is in his or her own interest, then committing suicide is also in that person"s own interest. (3) Therefore, if a person is suffering considerable pain due to an incurable illness, then committing suicide is in that person"s own interest. It is in the person's best interest to commit euthanasia.
True Christians Hate Homosexual People

Wow. You support Donald Trump and you think for a trillionth of a second that I'm being "rude"? Would you like to retract that statement as he's rude every single time he opens his teeth for a yodeling caw from his hamster wheel? Are YOU serious? Here's a very simple question for you. . . Since you were obviously point blank indoctrinated into your beliefs. . . If there is ever some truth, Reasoning and common sense that would be laid in your lap that would 100% disprove your god's existence, Would you still believe in your god?
True Christians Hate Homosexual People

Backwardseden, I'm sorry but I will not be debating with you. You only accepted this challenge to attempt to rant about how you hate Christianity and how you do not believe in God and you want to prove he is false-I'm not here to debate that. You consistently take the Bible out of context and you are rude and overall a distasteful person towards any of your opposers. If you can manage to have a more professional conduct and are willing to debate the topic and only the topic I have put before you, Then I will continue this debate. Until then, Good day.
The Bible is Outdated

The Bible is not an outdated document and is relevent for everyone today. Proposed Rules Round 1 is for agreement of rules and opening statement. Statement should be short much like a Thesis Statement. Round 2-4 are for rebuttals and evidence. Round 5 is for Closing Statements, no new arguments or evidence. Failure to follow this format results in automatic forfeit. Professionalism is imperative and no personal attacks. You must stay on topic as this is to be a serious debate. Definitions: The Bible is the 66 books that are generally accepted as the Canon. Outdated: Not relevant for today as a whole. If you need any other definitions please message me so we can agree to them before proceeding.Burden of Proof is SharedI look forward to your acceptance. Serious Debaters Only!
The Bible is Outdated

My opponent has argued that because society doesn't believe something is correct means that it is not relevant. He cited "sexism." However, a bulk of the Christian society still holds to those values, does that mean they are outdated or simply doing it the right conservative way? Other verses were taken completely out of context and any logical person can see that. My opponent has not argued how the Bible as a whole is irrelevant. I would say that Thou Shalt not Kill is still quite relevant today. Do unto others, is still relevant and quoted often today by all members of society. I yield to my opponent as he has not given any good arguments for the Bible being outdated.
The Bible is Outdated

Is sexism revelent? No, because in today's society we look down upon sexism. The man is the head of the woman: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God," Corinthians 11:3 Wives must submit to the man. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto The Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5:22-25 A woman is not allowed to speak in church: "Let your woman keep silece in the churches.: for it is not permitted unto them to speakl but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." Timothy 2:12 Is genocide revelant to today's society? "This is what The Lord Almighty says...'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." 1 Samuel 15:3 The murder of people who call themselves witches? "Do not allow a sorceress to live." Exodus 22:18 The Killing of infants? "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us/ He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 Slavery? "Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." 1 Peter 2:18 You cannot take an ancient book, written 2,000-5,000 years ago, written in a completely culurally different time and say it isn't outdated. Just look at Leviticus chapter 20 which says that you sjalll be punnished with death if you worship other gods, curse your parents, commit adultery, if you have sex with your step mom, if you have sex with someone of the same sex, if you blaspheme the name of The Lord. Go and read the chapter. IF someone commits adultery, do we kill them? What about homosexuals? Or everyone who isn't Christian?
The Bible is Outdated

The Bible is not outdated. Example, take the 10 Commandments. One is you shall not murder. Is that outdated? Nobody would argue that, in fact, they would say it is very much reasonable to take that as continued truth today. You shall not lie. Do we believe lying is wrong? Yes. You shall not commit adultery. Do we believe Adultery is wrong? Yes, we do. The notion that the Bible is outdated is unfounded. There are arguments of portions of the Bible being outdated, and most of those, if not all, are referencing some of the law which was covered by the Death of Christ and no longer applicable. That doesn't mean they are outdated, it means they have been taken care of.
Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School band.

As you can see, band is MUcH more challenging than chorus. You have to memorize notes and many other techniques! You have to be able to keep in rythym and listen to your fellow members. You have to watch your conductor and your music. You have to listen to everyone aroud you and your instrument. You have to change your airflow in order to stay on pitch, in chorus all you have to do is sit there!
Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School band.

I agree, but in chorus you have to also change motion in your lips, mouth, body position, and vocal tone. In chorus you also have to remember your notes and words because you can't bring the music on to the stage. Also in band, as you said, it is hard to change from one instrument to another. That also applies to chorus because if a person is an alto and wants to be a soprano then it takes time to re just. This also goes for bear-tone and tenor. In chorus there is actually about four parts in mixed and about three in women's. So you are alone in your section, like band, you are on your own because you must depend on yourself and not you section to find the notes because if one person is off key then the whole chorus takes the blame. Like in sports, we are a team and a team is only as strong as its weakest link. So band and chorus are close to the same, but chorus is harder because we must be more advanced in memorization, and also be advanced in tones and melodies just like band. So chorus must be harder than band.
Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School band.

I think that band is harder than chorus because it takes years and years to master an instrument whereas to master the skill of singing it only takes six months to a year. Also, you have to work VERY VERY hard to achieve your full potential in band. You have to practice for at least half an hour EVERY day to achieve your goals. Also, there is usually many different melodies and rythyms going on at one time. In the choral program, there is usually two basically similar melodies and one base melody. That makes it easier to follow than being on your own. In band you also have to be able to multitask to keep track of what your fingers, mind, lips, and eyes are doing all at the same time. You have to be able to play your notes right, hold the right articulation, pay attention to the dynamics, listen to your other members so that you can stay balanced, look at your score, AND pay attention to the director. This makes it very challenging. There is no way in two or three years of middle school that someone could COMPLETELY master the art of music. So, my point is that you can teach someone to sing fairly decently ALOT quicker and easier than you can teach a person to play a complex instrument such as any of those in band. Also, not everyone can play instruments just as not all people can sing. It takes natural ability to be able play or sing, but if you took two identical people with natural musical "talent" you could teach them to sing ALOT faster than you could teach someone to play an instrument! You can play different types of music just as you can sing different types of music! You can play jazz, pop, rock, classical, opera, swing, latin just as you can sing them. There are also many more groups than you mentioned in your argument, and even if they were just grouped into those groups, there would be over thousands and thousands in each of those groups! Also, say you learn to play the saxophone, there are over fifteen different types of saxophones, each unique and very different. For instance, the flute and piccolo have the same fingerings for notes, so someone might say that it would be easy to switch in between the two. But, are they wrong!! In order to play the piccolo you have to have a COMPLETELY different embouchure than the flute. Also, in chorus all you have to do is change the flow of your air to change notes. In band, you have to move your fingers your mouth AND your air all are the same time. This makes it VERY challenging!
Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School band.

Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School Band because according to most middle school chorus teachers must teach their student musical theory, history, vocal technique, vocal production, choral technique, expressiveness, dynamics, tempo, musical terms, performance, musical literacy, rhythm, pitch, melody, harmony, score study, and analysis. That is lot to learn compared to what band has to learn. This is multi tasking, tempo, musical terms, rhythm, score study, and analysis. Chorus learns most of these things plus more. Also both must learn good sportsmanship, for they will compete in competitions. Also to become a good chorus student you must have natural born talent, whereas in band, with lots of practice, you can master in about two or three years. Also you may think getting a 100% in chorus is easy, but that is the hardest part. The teacher's usually grade like this: Sight Singing Tests - 10% Students will have a sight singing tests. The test will include singing by solfege or numbers and in parts. Rhythm Tests - 10% These tests will be given as needed to check that students comprehend basic rhythms. Nine Weeks Test - 10% PARTICIPATION - 70% At the beginning of each nine-week grading period, each student will be given 100 points. This grade is for daily participation. Demerit points will be deducted as listed on the previous page; for example, Not participating---------------6 points Missed dress rehearsal-------------25 points Missed Formal Performance--------------25 points So you see it is hard to keep a good grade in chorus. So chorus is hard. Thus chorus is harder than band.
The Devil's Advocate

I'm going to argue that if god exists, The devil is actually more moral then god himself. So for the purposes of this debate, I will be assuming that the christian god exists and I will accept any scripture as potential evidence as well as any logical arguments whose premises come from scripture. If there is a certain bible that you would like to use, Let me know in advance and please provide the complete name so I can find it because being a hethen, I don't know all the different types of bibles, Lol.
The Devil's Advocate

Sure, So I will just state my broad premises and I will add scripture where necessary P1A. God delivers edicts in the bible that are immoral P2A. Delivering immoral edicts makes one immoral CA. Therefore, God is immoral P1B: God is immoral [CA] P2B: Rejecting immoral beings is moral CB: Therefore, Rejecting God is moral P1C: Rejecting God is moral [CB] P2C: Satan Rejects God CC: Therefore, Satan is moral P1D: God is immoral [CA] P2D: Satan is moral [CC] P3D: moral beings are more moral than immoral beings. CD: Therefore, Satan is more moral than God.
Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years

Dear sir, you cannot place a definition in the final round of the debate and change the entire focus. That is simply unsportsmanlike. We are having two completely separate debates here and unfortunately yours is invalid. You keep arguing from the standpoint of American Football when we are discussing the debate through the lens of British Football. I apologize that your First Round simply said "Bring it" [sic] rather than set parameters for the debate. You have countered none of my points but instead have tried to spin the debate to focus on American Football which was not what we started debating from the beginning. Even though this debate was derailed and muddled by my opponent I will still counter his point that he claims I dropped.North Carolina had the #1 soccer recruiting class. Again, Alabama isn't even in the Top 5. [1] To Recap...My opponent did not put forth any definitions, foregoing his responsibility to do so in the first round he posted "Bring it" [sic]. I then responded by providing definitions and steered the debate towards the resolution put forth by making good, sourced, arguments. My opponent then decides to change the focus of the debate after it had already been set thus making incoherent arguments in relation to the debate being had.His points and arguments make no sense in context. Mine do. I have negated the resolution successfully and should be awarded the win.Thanks. [1] http://www.topdrawersoccer.com...
Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years

Let us hypothetically compare them in the context that you want. If you were to even put them in that kind of comparison it still would be hard pressed to put them at the level of Alabama. You can argue it from any context that you wish, but I may as well. Noun Football - A team game played in North America with an oval ball on a field marked out as a gridiron. So now lets take a look at why Alabama is better. The first thing that pro argues, is his team has won 3 out of 5 championships. This would be a great argument except for the fact that Alabama has won 3 out of 4 in the past 4 years with an appearance in the title game in the year they did not win. This is not even an argument if you are comparing pure numbers. He also does not address any of the prior points I made about the best recruiting program in the Nation( United Stated since he wants to play semantics). He also does not address the fact of them winning last years championship in a blowout. He avoids the win loss records I posted In closing, due to con redefining what the word football means he changes the context of this debate. Mind you, I will concede that he is allowed to do that even if it is out of trolling. He has also provided nothing to show they are the best. I have shown why Alabama is better. They have more championships in a less amount of time. They have a better win loss, and also one of the best recruiting programs in the United States. Just by the figures Con put out, this is illogical and not comparable. It is like comparing a Big Mac, to a Mac Jr. While I admit every time I watch soccer I want to shove a led pencil through my skull, due to the fact of how borign it is. He is permitted to argue from hat context, but has shown no reason as to why they are they past. He also has not addressed any of my points and claims they are rubbish. I was citing common knowledge, but if he wants sources I will provide those as well. I think we can clearly see there is no comparison. If he thinks there is one, it is out of empathy for the fact that soccer cannot compare to football no matter which nation it is played in. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://espn.go.com... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years

Good sir, I am not a troll. Far from it. I provided a definition where none was provided. Since you said "football" I assumed, using my background in British English that you were talking about football or as Americans call it soccer.Now, you did not provide a counter definition and as debate etiquette goes that means you accepted my definition which means we are debating the skill and superlative nature of Alabama's soccer team. You did not present any sources for your arguments and as far as their soccer team goes your facts are dead wrong. I extend and reaffirm my facts and sources which show Alabama's football team to be mediocre. Especially since they don't have a functioning men's football program. In fact my opponent's facts are pure gibberish when applied to the debate resolution. Unless my opponent can show that Alabama's football team, as defined in the first round and applied to the resolution, is the best (which I have shown beyond the shadow of the doubt that it is not) then he loses the debate.Again, North Carolina's women's football team is the best in the country of late, not Alabama.Thank you again.
Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years

I take your troll and hand you 3 bchs national championships in the past 4 years. They won the 2009.2011, and 2012 national championships with only two losses in all three of those seasons combined. Even the 2010 championship they lost was done so with hardly no losses. Take in the fact they have the best recruiting program in the NCAA it is simple to see why they always win. Last year Notre Dame will held to be the best team in the NCAA besides Alabama and they got face-rolled for lack of a better word. They were out of place. Judging by win loss, total championships, and the quality of the players there is no team that can compete with them in the past few years.
Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years

Football - a game played by two teams of eleven players with a round ball that may not be touched with the hands or arms during play except by the goalkeepers. The object of the game is to score goals by kicking or heading the ball into the opponents' goal. Americans refer to this game as "soccer" but as original English dictates, football is the name of the game. Now, that being established. .. Alabama is NOT the best college football team at the moment, that spot belong to Indiana [1] In fact, Alabama doesn't even crack the top 48. Alabama doesn't even have a men's football team in this category so they clearly can't be the best in that either. Alabama's football team hasn't won a NCAA championship. So clearly, they haven't been the best in the past few years either. North Carolina has won 3 out of the last 5 championships [2] so I think they've been the best in the past few years. Thank you. [1] . http://www.topdrawersoccer.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...