BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

You talk about Tony reaching his potential, but what potential has he got?! I mean no offence, but he is not a scientist, he cannot be an office worker or a doctor. He can do nothing for the rest of his life but feel guilty for sponging off his wife. And yes, of course Tony would suffer depression after his event, but the stroke occurred in 2005 and he waited 7 years with still no hope and no chance of doing anything more with his life; he was a businessman, he couldn't have continued with his profession whilst suffering from locked in syndrome. You say Tony didn't have to die, but he didn't have to live either. It should be up to him to choose whether or not he lives or dies, to go through that misery or to put a stop to it. His message to us was: 'Goodbye world, the time has come, I had some fun.' He had obviously thought long and hard before going through with what he did, but having to endure even more pain for 1 week whilst suffering from pneumonia dent my pride in being British, to know that my government did that to one of our own and stripped him of his dignity. It is truly disgusting. Bringing up the problem of disguised murder, you continue to oppose euthanasia. But euthanasia is not one family member killing another. If you were to legalise it, a similar system would be used as in Switzerland. You take your family member to the clinic, they make 100% sure this is what they want and then either an injection is administered or a drink is taken and then they slowly and painlessly pass away. The family member does not actually perform the suicide. Murder would be practically impossible, there isn't a DIY option, only clinics to do the service for you. My method to help my grandfather? Taking him to Switzerland, paying for the taxi to the clinic and comforting him during his last moments. Surely THAT is more peaceful, more dignified and more desirable than watching him waste away as he refuses food or medical treatment.
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

I'm not going to argue that point, though I could, I actually meant to argue attempting suicide, which we can both agree on. The case of Tony Nicklinson is definitely a sad one, however, it was not a necessity for him to die. Stephen Hawking, like Tony Nicklinson is confined to wheelchair, however he overcomes it, and continues to be one of the greatest scientists of the era. Obviously Mr. Nicklinson would have to of been struggling from some sort of depression after the traumatic event, it is only natural. Killing him would end his potential. Also, new therapies, medicines, and techniques are being invented everyday which could of helped him greatly. He did not need death, he wanted it. He FELT as if it was impossible; he FELT as if it was unbearable; he FELT as if there was no hope, but there was, and it was ended. Those who overcome are always happy they did. Euthanasia and Suicide are closely related topics. You can have suicide without help, but in order for assisted suicide to occur, you have to allow them to kill you, which is ultimately just another form of suicide. However, in cases where they cannot communicate with you in anyway: let's say a family decides it's time for a rich family member who's been in a coma to die in order to inherit money for their own benefit. - Very Flawed. In cases where it is their choice to allow someone to kill them (practical suicide): definitely opens the door to suicide. Mass Euthanasia and Attempted Suicide would occur, because it is now legal. The law makes people think about suicide before it occurs, removing it would make suicide easier. Not only that, but faked suicides would be easier to make. Murders would obviously be easier to make if they claim it was an "assisted suicide". Perfect opportunity for criminals. Suicide has devastating effects on family members, can tear them apart, and they will never be the same. It can be a very selfish act. By the way, I would love to hear, what method would make killing your grandfather (or some other relative) "PERFECTLY comfortable" for you? Assuming you would never feel any remorse.
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

We aren't legalising homicide, we are letting people choose to die when they are unable to. Oprah (and most likely the other two, I don't know who they are) would have been able to commit suicide whether or not euthanasia was legal, she could have easily thrown herself in front of a train, jumped off a bridge or taken an overdose. Euthanasia needs to be there for people who are unable to commit suicide. So, even if euthanasia was legal, we would still have Oprah and other icons. In 2005, Tony Nicklinson from Wiltshire suffered a stroke at the age of 51. Consequently, he suffered from locked-in syndrome and was unable to talk, walk, move his arms and he had absolutely no independence. He lived a life of absolute misery. His wife would have done anything to help him painlessly put an end to his misery but because of laws banning assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, she could do nothing. Mr Nicklinson's only choice was to starve himself. After refusing food for one week, Tony passed away; but this week of intense pain he endured could have been stopped if euthanasia was legal. Tony would have committed suicide either way, the British government forced him to do it in a most painful and horrible way. People who want to commit suicide will usually find a way to do it; by legalising euthanasia we can make it a better path for them all. I understand what you're saying about potential trauma for the person who assisted with the suicide but we can take measures to ensure they are not pushed into it and are perfectly comfortable with doing it. But imagine how traumatic it must have been for Tony's wife, having to watch her husband endure the worst pain every day of his life and watch him waste away as he took a difficult but the only path to an end to misery.
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

The legalization of euthanasia would be the first step to legalizing homicide. There is no pain great enough to allow for euthanasia. Obviously if someone is in pain or depression they will not think clearly about the value of life. Several icons in America such as Oprah, Matthew McConaughey, and John Adams all went through a period in their life where they had a major depression disorder up to the point of wanting death. If euthanasia was legal, we would of never had these great men/women. Also, from the perspective of the person who helps kill his friend. That could easily be a traumatic experience for them to endure for the rest of their life. The death of their friend, in their hands.
Should Donald Trump become President

Rebuttals: #1: "For your statement about the veteran healthcare situation, that is not factual." --- Well his website as I listed in my sources state that directly. If he became president he would do what he stated there. How is it not factual? #2: "For instance, he has said on live television that he was pro-life then a month later discusses that he was pro-choice." --- Not true. He was pro-choice as early as 1989 and later explicitly stated in 1999 on Meet the Press (1). He switched to pro-life with exceptions around 2011 (2). #3: "he has praised Saddam Hussein..." --- He only praised his ability to quell terrorists within his country. According to CNN, Trump called Saddam "a bad guy." Trump isn't referring to the guy himself but his ability to keep extremists down (3). SOURCES: (1)- (2)- https://www.washingtonpost.com... (3)- http://www.cnn.com...
Should Donald Trump become President

As regards for the racist comments on Mexicans let me be more clear. He was not talking about the government sending over killers,rapist, and drug dealers because that would be undeniably illegal. For your statement about the veteran healthcare situation, that is not factual. And what I mean about that is, Donald Trump has many times over contradicting himself. For instance, he has said on live television that he was pro-life then a month later discusses that he was pro-choice. Another example would be how he frequently mocks Hillary Clinton and Pres.Obama about using teleprompters but, then later on uses them himself. With all that information stated how do you know for a fact that he will not change his mind just as he did before. As for praising Kim, I might have taken that out of context but he has praised Saddam Hussein, a man well known for killing his own citizens. Donald Trump is a racist in the since that he does not like any other ethnicity other than his own, he condemned the trial that was being held earlier in June because the judge was of Mexican heritage. Donald Trump as also illegally tasked himself and his son to ask for funding from foreign governments such as Scotland. Although he may seem incredibly trustworthy he is without a doubt not. He complained on the David Letterman show that we the American people are being cheated out of our money and resources by China, yet his very own clothes are manufactured there.
Should Donald Trump become President

I will start with some rebuttals. #1: ..."he has on many occasions complimented the accomplishments and achievements of the tyrannical leader Kim jong un." -My opponent states that Trump praises Kim Jong Un, however his line regarding him was taken out of context. He was discussing how incredible it was that Un was so quickly able to take control of the country. He then goes to state, "... we can"t play games with him. Because he really does have missiles. And he really does have nukes." This does not sound like he is praising the dictator to me. (1) #2 ...:"openly racist making claims like, " Mexicans are killers, drug dealers, and some are good." -My opponent again takes Trump's lines out of context. In his announcement speech, he explicitly refers to the COUNTRY of Mexico-- its GOVERNMENT-- sending over bad people. He is stating how some of the people Mexico sends to this country have problems that we cannot afford to deal with. He does not generalize the Mexican people, he is only referring to a small portion of the population that their government has migrate here. #3 ...:"he will only see the good and care for the betterment of white people." -Again, a baseless claim. Nowhere has Trump stated or released or thought up any plans that would only benefit one race. He has stated in many videos on his website and throughout his speeches that he wants to HELP all races by decreasing the poverty rate and bringing domestic jobs back to put unemployed people to work. Additional arguments: Trump is for medical marijuana, and having it state-regulated at that. This sets him apart from other traditional GOP candidates who have outright opposed marijuana all together. This has the potential to appeal to more moderate/young voters as this is an issue many see as important. (2) Trump wants to reform veteran healthcare. According to his plan, he wants to expedite delivery of service to patients, increase care for sufferers of PTSD, and allow their ID card to be used to obtain care wherever they choose. He also wants to increase funding for staff training so that the system can be made more efficient. He also wants to ensure that all VA care facilities permanently staff OBGYN doctors so that women veterans can receive better and more equal treatment. (3) SOURCES: (1)-- http://www.factcheck.org... (2)-- http://www.hightimes.com... (3)-- https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
Should Donald Trump become President

Donald Trump should not become president for many reasons. For one, his political ideals match those of a dictator, he has on many occasions complimented the accomplishments and achievements of the tyrannical leader Kim jong un. Not to mention this disappointment of a man is openly racist making claims like, " Mexicans are killers, drug dealers, and some are good". How can we achieve equality in America having him as our president when we know he will only see the good and care for the betterment of white people.
Should superheroes be arrested

Okay so originally i couldn't think of many arguments for pro but upon researching the topic i think i can make a good argument. I believe superheroes should be arrested if they have broken laws that apply to normal people because otherwise what is to stop people from claiming they are superheroes to get away with crimes superheroes are usually forgiven for. As well as this superheroes are often dangerous and end up causing more damage than if they had not been involved at all.
Vegetarianism

I wasn't saying it was a matter of intelligence I was saying if you are irreligous life has no inherent value as I said extensively in my earlier argument"Thirdly, the entire premise of the morality behind vegitarianism is the assuption that life inherently has value. However if you are not religous that is entirely ilogical. If the universe was a happy accident from pure chance along with the earth and through natural selection the species of the earth evolved leaving us with the contempary world, life has no inherent meaning and is valueless. People commonly say that even though its through chance I still enjoy things I still experience emotion, sadness and joy this gives it value. I would reply but you believe such experience and emotions are just chemicals in your brain and are just telling you to like things, to refrain from things to eat and to drink and only because they were the optimal things for you to survive as species without this hightened sense of morality were more likely to be wiped out as ultimate division and lack of morality towards other in the species would help drive it to exstinction. How could one who is irreligous say that life has meaning and it is wrong to eat meat as you are killing something that still has a significant awareness. Surely that is no premise to say that is immoral as surely if you are irreligous there is no morality as they these are delusional perceptions created by natural selection in order for us to survive easier. " and if you are religious you would think that God gave us the earth to subdue it and that the animals were created for our wellbeing.You aren't responding to my pointFurthermore I wouldn't eat a dog or a cat not for moral reasons but because i feel that they probably taste discusting and it being illegal I wouldn't want to eat something that i feel would taste discusting and risk jail for it. Answer me this if one is irreligious as one would have to be, why would life have any inherent meaning or value so why would killing an animal matter if it didn't???
Vegetarianism

The whole point of my third paragraph was that if you are irreligious animal rights are illogical as life inherently would have no value as emotion and awareness would mean nothing as it is just chemicals in your brain telling to do so, and it is only doing so because of natural selection has caused it to be like that. That was the premise behind my main argument. However if you are christian like me or part of another religion then you must think that life has inherent meaning ad purpose because God made it so."Thirdly, the entire premise of the morality behind vegitarianism is the assuption that life inherently has value. However if you are not religous that is entirely ilogical. If the universe was a happy accident from pure chance along with the earth and through natural selection the species of the earth evolved leaving us with the contempary world, life has no inherent meaning and is valueless. People commonly say that even though its through chance I still enjoy things I still experience emotion, sadness and joy this gives it value. I would reply but you believe such experience and emotions are just chemicals in your brain and are just telling you to like things, to refrain from things to eat and to drink and only because they were the optimal things for you to survive as species without this hightened sense of morality were more likely to be wiped out as ultimate division and lack of morality towards other in the species would help drive it to exstinction. How could one who is irreligous say that life has meaning and it is wrong to eat meat as you are killing something that still has a significant awareness. Surely that is no premise to say that is immoral as surely if you are irreligous there is no morality as they these are delusional perceptions created by natural selection in order for us to survive easier. "
Vegetarianism

Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.
Bnp are cowards

If the negative cannot prove without a doubt that the BNP are cowards then the affirmative wins, I said something to that effective in my first speech unless, I am mistaken, it quite possibly may have been my second. I was unaware that my opponent had dyslexia, but there is a spell checker. Dictionary.com provides us with coward as a very fearful or timid person. My definition of coward was not refuted so it must stand. To quote my opponent My opponent has just repeated several things he had already stated in his opening challenge, he is not using facts to back up his statements and is critising mine. My response to that is, yes it is called extending your points, making sure they are understood, and attacking your opponents case, that is what debaters do. Like to restate this We're not talking about what Britain needs or wants first of all. We are here to prove that BNP are cowards or not cowards. She says yes we are but the burden and case reads the BNP are cowards. Not why if they are or if they aren't is bad for Britain. My opponent keeps conceding that she is using her own opinions and interpretations, where as I use clear facts and definitions to provide for my case and show why the BNP are not cowards. Voters, must also look to the fact she did not efficiently refute the statement on Liberties and political battle. Because by my definition the values held in the BNP statement on Liberties and Political Battle does not make them cowards. I have refuted what the evidence says with other evidence in the court cases and other areas After reading the case if one cannot conclude that they are CLEARLY cowards as my opponent states then ballot must be affirmative.
Bnp are cowards

WEre not talking about what Britain needs or wants first of all. We are here to prove that BNP are cowards or not cowards. I can barely understand what my opinion is aying through all the spelling errors. Ok, honestly who cares about the 167 cases of 167 cases of white people being victims of racist murder and the evidence being inaccurate. That is just a misunderstand and happens everywhere to any evidence. One must realize that all evidence is slightly biased in some way. My opponent says they are there to unleash racist violence above in my statements quoted from their mission statement proves otherwise. Being self opinionated takes courage and my opponent should know, as she is a very opinionated young lady. She keeps stating in my opinion they are this, in my opinion authorities must act. your opinions are valid but do not weigh much on the case. Even if these people were distributing these pamphlets to stir up racial hatred. In order to do these would require courage. Because as seen the punishment was jail time or at least being arrested. It takes courage to stand up to that and say I will do this because It is what I believe. Griffin and Collett were each acquitted of half of the charges against them in 2006 November 10th. So, my opponent may be misinformed. Also, to show up to court is in itself a courageous act. As we look back to the definition of coward being fearful or timid. Surely, showing up and possibly facing jail time would be fearful to most but they were able to look fear in the eye and say I will show up, making them courageous. Voters, must also look to the fact she did not effeciently refute the stetement on Liberties and political battle. To bring about change is not cowardly but instead courageous. To go against the established order is not cowardly but once again admirable.Calling these peoples cowards is like calling the United States government cowards. To care for their citizens is not cowardly but rather admirable, to end racism is admirable not cowardly.
Bnp are cowards

Let us define the word coward Dictionary.com provides us with coward as a very fearful or timid person. The BNP unless i am mistaken is the British National Party. Their mission statement on Liberties is as follows Liberties Above and beyond our activities in the political world, we daily work with our people in their homes and communities addressing the fundamental issues of civil liberties and reverse discrimination. Increasingly our people are facing denial of service provision, failure to secure business contracts as well as poor job prospects as both reverse discrimination excludes our people from the school room, workplace and boardroom. A key role of the British National Party is to provide legal advice and support to victims of repression and those denied their fundamental civil rights. Calling these peoples cowards is like calling the United States government cowards. To care for their citizens is not cowardly but rather admirable, to end racism is admirable not cowardly. The mission Statement on the Political battle is Political battle The struggle to secure our future is being waged on many fronts. The need for political power is crucial to bring about our goals. Without effective political representation the majority of Britons, who are deeply concerned about the future, have no voice in the chambers where decisions are made. Increasingly numbers of voters are expressing apathy and discontent with the endless incompetence, lies,false promises and sleaze coming from the three parties that make up the Old Gang. The BNP will contest and win elections at council, parliamentary, Assembly or European level in order to achieve political power to bring about the changes needed. To bring about change is not cowardly but instead courageous. To go against the established order is not cowardly but once again admirable. My opponent brings her ideas in but has no warrants for why she thinks that and it is clear they have morals from the mission statements I have provided and analyzed slightly.
Music Challenge

Thanks, Ross. http://www.youtube.com... My first song will be Brave Shine, the second opening song of the anime Fate/Stay Night (although I never watched it). The original piano cover is by Animenz Piano Sheets, and you can find the original cover and the channel itself in the video description. Note: Apologies for the poor quality of the video, including how I accidentally recorded this at an upright angle, which is why there is extreme letterboxing (I rarely, if ever, record myself). I'll be sure to improve the next two in the future. (And before you ask, yes, that's a grand piano.)