BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Suicide is a Rational Decision

Well, I guess this isn't a debate, Since you don't know where you stand. I do, However think it's great that you are trying to hear from multiple sides. I'm also not sure if you're talking about assisted suicide, Or just regular suicide. I'll just assume it's assisted suicide since that's what you touched on in your initial piece. So allow me to try and convince you. I do not think that assisted suicide should be allowed. While, Yes the person in question would take up hospital space, There are solutions to that. You can bring hospital beds to homes, So that would solve the problem of taking up hospital space. If the person is in extreme agony, Then there are drugs like morphine that can help take care of it. A lot of times, Just the presence of the person is comforting to the family. Just knowing they are still alive can have tremendous effect. Plus, The longer they stay alive, The longer a family will have to sort out finances and funeral expenses for when they do pass away. Going back to that point you made, Where you need consent to carry it out, The person may change their mind. Maybe they are going through a phase of depression at the moment, And they may change their mind later, And spend more time enjoying the time spent with their families, Which would not be able to happen if they had died. Plus, Whoever carries out the act will have an enormous emotional burden, Knowing that they killed someone. Even though the person wanted them to do it, They may overthink it and wonder, As I said above, If that was actually what they wanted or if they were just having a temporary phase of depression. The point still stands, Though, How would you feel if you knew that you were responsible for the death of a loved one? Pain medication isn't perfect of course, And going back to my morphine piece, Pain medicines don't work in 1-4% of cases, But in those, Sedation can work. As I said before, Even if they are sedated, Their presence is still comforting. Also, Good medical practitioners aim to fix or heal the pain by treating it, Not by killing the person, With or without their permission. Also, In Belgium, Assisted suicide was legalized, And it is a slippery slope, And now children can be euthanized if they want to. Another reason to not allow it is because medical technology changes rapidly, And in the case of Magic Johnson, He thought he was going to die, But a treatment for AIDS came around before that happened, And he was cured. So, I'm not really sure what the second round will be, But I hope this helped you decide which side you will take. Thank you for letting me take part in this debate!
Suicide is a Rational Decision

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue, But I want to hear the multiple sides of the arguments. The argument against euthanasia or assisted suicide is that in order to assist someone in suicide, You first require their consent. In order for a person to give their consent, They must be of sane mind. The problem then manifests when the argument is made that a person with suicidal thoughts or desires is not of sane mind, And therefore cannot given consent. Interested to hear whether other people believe that a person with suicidal thoughts can come to that conclusion rationally or not.
The US could defeat China and North Korea single handedly

See, here's the problem. As a United States citizen, I don't know how large our intelligence network is. I know that it exists, but I can't confirm or deny that it could know about such an operation. What I do know is that China and N.K. could concentrate their forces together. Given the dispersed nature of our military, the principles of Force Concentration would be in large effect. Supplying troops wouldn't be difficult in the U.S. We have food everywhere. Logistically speaking, if a large enough force could get past us unguarded, then we would be in trouble. Depending on our response, then a different outcome might occur, but that requires a fast response. Another possible strategy that China and N.K. could adopt is that of a proxy war. China has a lot of money and could pay or mercenaries to start the assault. The other way this could go is that of a fake terrorist attack. Force Concentration: https://en.wikipedia.org...
The US could defeat China and North Korea single handedly

First. In a war, congress can be skipped and can go directly to POTUS in an emergency. Second. China and North Korea could not surprise attack us without us knowing. Our intelligence community and our allies is simply too good and big for them to genuinely surprise us. And just to further prove my point, check out this site. http://www.globalfirepower.com... The only thing wrong in their summary is that the US Navy has 10 carriers with two under construction. And this doesn't count the secret naval ships and helicopters.
The US could defeat China and North Korea single handedly

You are right. The U.S.A. has the largest, most powerful military in the world. There is, however, one obstacle they can't get over. Congress. The collective might of the military falls to putty in the hands of the most indecisive group of people on the planet. As long as China or North Korea played their cards right, they could come out on top. This of course would require meticulous planning and a surprise attack, but, given that the win condition is the destruction of either powers government, than China and North Korea could definitely succeed if they put together a pinpoint strike. The military, being largely unprepared for this kind of strike so close to home, would not be able to repel the attack, and would therefore lose a large portion of the U.S. government and possibly the Pentagon (which would be devastating). When it comes down to it, it really depends on the circumstances.
Why sex education should be taught in grade schools.

First of all I would like to point out that I know for a fact, because my brother and I went through it, that a form of "sex ed" is taught in elementary schools. I'm not sure about where you live, but as for where we live, the school started out with the children in 4th grade talking about puberty and what changes the kids will see in their bodies. They start in the 5th grade actually separating the kids by gender and showing them videos about what their body and the body of the opposite gender will be going through. They use cartoon models and real actors talking about what the changes in their body is, and then at the end, they hand out bags with little booklets about what the developing stages are for what age group. They do not teach the kids HOW to have sex or hand out contraceptives. This class that they have is teaching basically exactly what you described in your opening argument. At the age of 12 or 13, they kids are starting Jr. High and starting in the 4th grade talking about this stuff is giving the kids more than enough to get prepared. So I do not know what else you would want to add to these classes they are already having, but everything you were talking about is already being done.
Why sex education should be taught in grade schools.

Sex education should be taught in grade schools to students. Puberty begins at the age of twelve for females and thirteen for males. Puberty is a time of confusion, questioning, and self-examination, along with emotional and physical change. Alot of children and teens are uncomfortable talking to their parents about sexual behaviors and questions and are left feeling helpless. Sex education in grade schools allows a child to be able to freely express themselves emotionally, ask questions, gain answers, and be comfortable aroung peers who are experiencing the same difficult change. The only thing different about sex education is that it is NOT a "how-to" class; it will NOT teach students how to have, perform, and enjoy sex, nor will it teach a child how to properly use contraceptives. The class (program) is used to teach children about the difference in which their bodies is going through as well as teach them the bodily form, such as organs and etc. It is better to have a child be taught about sex and the body by a mature and responsible teacher, rather than from the media.
Should Burning the American Flag or State flags be Illegal

freedom is not absolute- I know that but it does not prove me wrong. what would stop them from saying the Deceleration of Independence supports there freedom to do anything. - There are two others that you forgot to mention that was included in the Declaration of Independence. Life and the pursuit of Happiness. If they are infringed upon by stating you have the liberty to do so then it is a problem. If they just say it was peaceful protest but don"t have any facts or reasons why they did it they should be fined at least 2, 000 dollars. - I am sure you know there are courts in place. If a person has a problem with what they are doing they can file a lawsuit. This goes with innocent until proven guilty. If the courts can prove it then they deserve the punishment. With countries like Iran threatening us if we keep letting these snowflakes burn the flag how can we be united as a nation. - Burning a flag can be a gateway to decreased efforts on wars but it I am sure not the cause of people against wars. I think United States should leave Iran. Reason is because they do not pose a viable threat, No gain for the United States to defeat them and most likely the army would have casualties for an avoidable war. Burning the Flag May not be rioting it doesn"t even have to be permitted but until our situation gets better it should be Illegal- Are you in support for an oppressive regime? I am not. That is the logical conclusion you are heading for. To me would you be opposed to Democrats creating an oppressive regime. So it would be a double standard in a sense. Why not agree on not creating laws that infringe on American liberty because that is the foundation of America and I rather have it that way because America is the greatest country in the world because of its strong foundation. Can you address my points more specifically. It is not fair that I targeted your points and you just went of an tangent. What I want is for you to debunk all five arguments I made and tell me why I was wrong and clearly lay it out instead of having it in one paragraph.
Should Burning the American Flag or State flags be Illegal

Yes the Decleration of Independence gave people Liberty but freedom is not absolute if we let people burn the American Flag what would stop them from saying the Deceleration of Independence supports there freedom to do anything. If somebody burns a flag and has good reasons and facts that are true for why they did it they should be let off with a warning. If they just say it was peaceful protest but don"t have any facts or reasons why they did it they should be fined at least 2, 000 dollars. With countries like Iran threating us if we keep letting these snowflakes burn the flag how can we be united as a nation. Burning the Flag May not be rioting it doesn"t even have to be permitted but until our situation gets better it should be Illegal
Should Burning the American Flag or State flags be Illegal

(I am annoyed. Accidently deleted my arguments so I am making this shorter then what is was before. )First argument: The decleration of independance was made to protect LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. By making flag burning illegal indivduals will lose the liberty to burn their flag. Second argument: It is not inherentely bad to burn a flag. Murder is inherentely bad because you are violating sometimes right by partaking in it. Third argument: It is more important the intent with the flag burning then flag burning itself. A and B are flag burners. A burnt is own flag. B burnt someone else's flag. By B burning someone else's flag he damaged someone else's property. If a lot of people had a problem with A the best charges that should be filed on him would be pollution, Public nuisance or be forced to apologize for what he did. Fifith argument: It does set a bad precident. I am assuming the Republicans would be banning burning flags. It allows Democrats to point this example to ban what they deem offensive manspreading. This can increase the tensions that the United States already has. Republicans have taken more of the logical and reasonable side (Bret Kavanaugh) but if they do this it would be ironic since there isn't a basis why flag is inherently wrong. Hopefully you do get annoyed at the direction I took because I was allowed to go anywhere with the premise of Con: thinks it's okay to burn a state flag or American flag and you did not set any rules. Okay is subjective and I did not want to debate on feelings or opinions. Think also narrows it down to what I believe but the debate would not be helpful in determining whether or not it should be banned. I would say I take the side of: Burning the American flag should not be illegal. Source:https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Life, _Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

'random chance' as con puts it, is not unlimited. it is based on the laws of nature, which make it work like clockwork. to us, we see randomness, but it is like clockwork. for example, when someone is walking down the street and gets struck by lightning, that was random chance, but it wasn't like it wasn't orchestrated by the laws of nature working like clockwork.... molecules doing what they do to cause the lighning and the person walking. if random chance was truly unlimited, it'd be such that it could "do anything", which is not the case with random chance. and even if it was able to do anything, it can't surmount the probing questions i gave about limiting itself or not limiting itself, without contradicting itself.
Should eating dogs be legal

"They are merely another source of food. " Sure, but pretty every living thing on earth could be considered another source of food. Endangered species, primates, and even humans can be cooked and eaten for energy. It is up to our society to decide where to draw the line, and most people [0] believe that dogs and cats should not be eaten. "If we create dog farms just like we do with cattle farms or with other live stock than we can eliminate the cruelty that most people might associate with eating dogs and we can raise certain dogs just for their food. " Just because you base a whole farm on slaughtering dogs doesn't make it any less cruel. 37.2% of Americans own dogs as pets, and I can't image those people eating dog meat right in front of their loving companion. [1] Not eating dog meat isn't just an odd quirk of our society; dog meat has little nutritional value when compared with alternatives such as beef or chicken. For every 100 grams, dog meat has 6g less protein than beef, and 13g less protein than chicken. Dog meat also has 16g more fat than beef and chicken. [2][3][4] This is my first debate on this site and I would really appreciate any tips/suggestions for improving my skills. Thank you! :) [0] - . http://forum.globaltimes.cn... and . http://china.globaltimes.cn... [1] - . http://www.avma.org... [2] - . http://wolf.ok.ac.kr... [3] - . http://nutritiondata.self.com... [4] - . http://nutritiondata.self.com...
When Searching for Truth, Compiling conclusive deductions is more effective than Debating.

The black and white fallacy I suppose. I think its easy to believe that because in debates we are only comparing ideas that at the end of the day we are only verifying one idea to be true and making no headway. However even our debate today reached a conclusion you probably deemed impossible by the phrasing of the title. I thank you for your time and your thought provoking topic. I enjoyed our discussion very much.
When Searching for Truth, Compiling conclusive deductions is more effective than Debating.

As for the 1st point, I suppose i have to agree to some extent. If the humans always made perfect deductions, and in turn, perfect conclusions, there would be no need for debates, since no correction would be needed. However, we live in a world where humans make mistakes, and quite often at that. Meaning every conclusion should be questioned to some degree, debated, meaning to examine, verify, and even question each of the premises and in turn the conclusion, thereby refining an argument. Debating is a means of correcting a current argument or in cases, at least coming closer to the truth to some extent, and also exposing false premises and/or conclusions. As for the Dollar Bill, I also agree strongly with the Doyle quote. It's deductively reasonable. Only 1 truth. And the 1st argument you present in the same paragraph, is that a debate has the potential to isolate falsehoods from truths. I also agree. However, on the ladder: Say you did truly understand the exactly every detail of the Genuine Bill, then with that accurate knowledge, there is no need to Debate about whether a bill is fake or not. With enough time examining the fake, a detail/many details will eventually reveal the truth. With a complete understanding of the Genuine Bill, all that's needed is an Examination. A Test of Verification. No need to compare 2 arguments, such as, "it is, and here's why" or "it isn't, and here's why", but simply, "This detail does or doesn't match and it means this..." Simple deductions. Though, however, i am lead to believe that not all truths may leave footprints to study as one could believe. Some truths have to be tested. Some do not. Some must simply be observed. Some simply understood through deductions. Not everything can be deduced without interaction. Humans create invalid arguments because humans make mistakes. I realize that there is one fact: When an Argument collides with an alternative answer (debating), holes in arguments can potentially become unmasked. Truths become unveiled. Falsehoods, just the same. I suppose i must reach a new conclusion. Debating, and Deductive reasoning shouldn't be treated as 2 separate methods to reach the truth, but rather, they are 2 elements of the same process. You use Deductive Reasoning to form an Argument based on Evidence. Then you refine your argument with debates, (which by definitions, includes personal inner debates). Thanks wisetank. You've helped me refine, if not completely withdraw my argument. I believe you are correct.
When Searching for Truth, Compiling conclusive deductions is more effective than Debating.

In some cases we can reach the truth by conclusive deduction and debating. However contrasting them like Pro has done is nonsensical. Wouldn't in most cases the sides turning up for the debate have already done their own "compiling" of "conclusive deductions"? I will take it that Pro means reaching the truth only by means of compiling deductions is more efficient than the means of deduction followed by debate. Pro gives examples of identifying bills and religion as questions which we would do better compiling truths rather than engaging in a challenge of ideas. I will challenge these one by one and provide my own example. In the famous words of Arthur Conan Doyle "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". This is to remind us that there is only one truth. If there is one truth, then all conflicts in debate must help us isolate the crux of things. When Pro gave his example of counterfeit bills, at the heart of that example is a debate. One person holding out a bill saying "this is real" and another person holding out a note saying "this is real". This debate would fast boil down to "this one part of the bill should look like this", a truth efficiently narrowed in and very easy to verify. This is in stark contrast to the truth obtained by finding a genuine bill and outlining every single detail of it to reach the true definition of a bill as Pro would have us do. Furthermore, the "truth" can't be listed out like pro would like to have us believe. In 1904 J.J. Thomas's model of the atom was the plum pudding model. A model that explained everything at the time to satisfaction. Pro would have us believe that Thomas should know what to do next in propositional logic, a way to get one step further to the truth. However things are not so simple in atomic theory. It took until Rutherford to come up with an opposing model that the differences in the model could be identified and an appropriate experiment arranged to see which one is true. The finding of truth in model building is almost entirely achieved through debate from Keynesian economic model challenging the classical economic model to Relativity challenging classical physics debate offers us a "shortcut" if you will in the infinite inexhaustible and futile attempts to go step by step attempt to find truth, that is by definition efficient.
When Searching for Truth, Compiling conclusive deductions is more effective than Debating.

Illustration: If you wanted to know if a dollar bill was counterfeit, you have 2 basic options: 1- Learn many of the forms of counterfeit bills out there. This would mean you would have to learn many types of counterfeit, perhaps all of them to be conclude with certainty whether the bill is either Counterfeit or Genuine. However, as examining all counterfeit is nearly impossible, as there are countless forms of counterfeit even for a simple dollar bill, it is more efficient to: 2- Study the original bill very closely. Examining every detail, in particular, the security features of the bill. This way, you only need to learn one. The real one. Illustrative Conclusion: Assuming having full ability to distinguish with certainty between the Genuine Bill and any counterfeit, It would be a waste of time to attempt to learn all the forms of counterfeit. Whereas, learning the Genuine Bill would save you the trouble. This method is more efficient and effective. The Drawn out Conclusion: The same can be true of any truth. For example, in religion, attempting to study all religions in search for the true religion would be a waste of time, if not at least, inefficient. To find the Genuine Truth, one simply must solve which religion is the true religion, then study that one. This does not mean however, to assume that whatever religion a person believes in is automatically the true religion. That much is obvious. However: Premise 1: Every Premise of an Argument must be in Harmony with all other premises and the Conclusion. Premise 2: If a Conclusion of any Argument is False, then either A: One of the Premises must also be False or B: One or more True Premise(s) that would change the Conclusion to become Accurate, must still exist, though unknown, or unaccounted for. Meaning, If any religion is false (a conclusion) then something in that religion will always somehow disagree with some sort of conclusively certain evidence somewhere. Just like a math equation. Conclusion: Comparing many religions together in order to find the true religion would be inefficient as apposed to the preferred option: Drawing absolutely certain conclusions based on absolute evidence and deductions. Debating involves looking at two arguments. But using the evidence and deductions to come to a conclusion, if done perfectly, and with the all the needed evidence (which must also be correct) will always lead to the correct answer. I believe this concept is true for any truth. Summary: Don't search for truth with debates (comparing arguments). Examine the all the applicable evidence, and deduce certain conclusions, and you will always eventually find the correct answer.