BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

I just have a couple of issues with your last argument and I'll leave it at that. -By definition anyone with a doctorate is a doctor. But even limiting the decisions to licensed physicians in no way, shape, or form is adequate. There is quite a difference between an E.R. Doc and and oncologist, for example. -The process IS arbitrary as long as there isn't a vetting process that would have to include a team of specialists all agreeing. A patient is only "terminal" when a doctor says so. Another Doc with the same exact training might disagree, a Doc with more specific training very often would. -Doctor shopping for purpose of getting a 2nd opinion is completely legal. In this case the patient would simply get as many opinions as necessary until he gets the one he wants. -The majority of cases where patients pull out of their illness aren't miraculous recovery, they are usually mis-diagnosis in the first place. The amount of cancer patients who are incorrectly told they are terminal is greater than you apparently realize, for example. I was a training coordinator in a major hospital for 4 years. Doctors incorrectly diagnosing patients and over or under estimating the severity of their illness is very common. It would probably appall you the number of "medical" decisions that are made based on insurance coverage rather than best care of the patient. Expanding this out to doctors making decisions such as assisted suicide is a slippery slope best not navigated.
Polygamy Should Be Legalized In All Fifty United States.

Thanks Mimshot! Glad I am debating you. You know your stuff :D Furthering burden of proof. 1. I have already pointed out that the laws relating to Polygamy should be struck down because they are unconstitutional. That is my argument. This law should never have happened because it is unconstitutional and this still applys as to why this law should be struck down now. Is my opponent seriously suggesting that we should keep unconstitutional laws unless there is a clear benefit? The clear benefit is that the constitution sets out how and what laws should be enacted. These anti Polygamy laws are not constitutional. Mimshot may be correct in saying that how these laws came about are not important. But the fact remains, that these laws are unconstitutional (I have never written constitutional so much before...) because they deny freedom of Religion practice. 2. I never said that Polygamous marriages were dangerous. I am saying that making something illegal that people enjoy make those things more dangerous. Alcohol prohibition did not work because people kept drinking and the money went to bad people who committed terrible acts. The same could be said now for the war on drugs. Polygamy was not a dangerous act in the same way traditional marriage is not a dangerous act. But if you make something illegal that people want to do, people will do it anyway without the protection of the law. And that include the laws around divorce. Polygamous arrangements should have acces to the same laws protecting people in marriage (not just from violence). If a polygamous relationship breaks down nobody can go to the courts to solve any disputes arrising. Rebuttals. My opponent argues that Nevada should not legalise Polygamy because it would damage the economy. Unless millions of people in Nevada decide to get Poly-married then the results would not be catastrophic for the construction industry. That is possible, but not exactly likely. And again, I seriously doubt that the prostitution industry would be that badly affected. But even if these were true, are we really going to not allow a Civil right because of the economic consequences? Is that where we have got to? I have no idea how to argue this with facts apart from that some economists have argued that Civil rights advancements have benefitted the economy in the past (1). And to argue against this as immoral would be subjective and not exactly appropriate...but I have no choice. To be against someones freedom because of the financial consequences is immoral. I know this will probably lose this for me. But that is the only thing I can argue here. Good luck to my opponent! (1) http://news.stanford.edu...
Polygamy Should Be Legalized In All Fifty United States.

"Polygamy" - A marriage that includes more than two people and that contains any mixture of genders (three wives and one husband, six husbands and no wives etc). http://dictionary.cambridge.org... "All Fifty United States" - As it says...every member state in America should have Polygamy legislated. Either Federally or at the state level with no federal conflicts (for example, medical marijuana in California is legal on a state level but illegal in Federal law). I thought this would be a fun debate because I have heard the old chestnut "legalizing gay marriage would open the door to polygamy" so many times recently. Just so you are aware, I am not from the United States but chose to debate America's Polygamy laws because most of the members of this website are American (or at least live there and know how the country works). I will be arguing why Polygamy should be legal in all fifty of the United States (either on the state level or federal...). First round - Acceptance and kind words. Second round - My bop argument and and my opponents rebuttal. Third and fourth round - Further rebuttals and closing arguments. I would like this to be a fun debate. No meanness or anger here please :D I am looking forward to this and good luck whoever accepts this!
Morals come from God.

This debate has been pointless so far. Pro, you are repeating the same argument, just in different words. So, I shall say my Round 2 argument once again. Atheists who killed weren't "killing in the name of atheism. " If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be "killing in the name of their religion" "We know, lying, rape, child abuse, murder is all wrong. When people say these actions are wrong, they are borrowing from a theistic point of view. " Your point being? Just because it's borrowed from a theistic point of view doesn't mean that it comes from God. "Scientists can't explain how we got a conscience. They can't even all agree on the origin of the universe. " Not relevant to an argument about morals. Would be relevant to an argument about the Big Bang and evolution. "Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. " Well, secularism has played a major role in science, and science has: Got the first people to the moon. Got the first person to break the sound barrier. Made computers. "Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? " Yes, look at my statement from round 1. Look. Even if God existed, that doesn't mean that morals come from God. I've provided my evidence for the subject at matter, you've provided evidence for something whose relation I've already shown false.
Morals come from God.

Yes, you are correct by saying that life has meaning. But, from an evolutionary point of view... You can't explain it's meaning. We have in our universe a standard how one ought to live. We know, lying, rape, child abuse, murder is all wrong. When people say these actions are wrong, they are borrowing from a theistic point of view. Scientists can't explain how we got a conscience. They can't even all agree on the origin of the universe. David Berlinski, a professor at Oxford University, An agnostic who leans closer towards Atheism said this: "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society." And he also said, "Has anyone provided proof of God"s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on." I personally see that atheism is really flawed. And I'm happy being a Christian not only because I trust Jesus. But, also because it is historically accurate.
Morals come from God.

Let's look back at one of my statements: " Also, atheists who killed weren't 'killing in the name of atheism.' If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be 'killing in the name of their religion' " This means that even if atheists killed 100 million people in the 20th century, they weren't killing in the name of atheism, unlike the crusades and inquisition for Christians. But let's get back to your argument. "Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." Can I have a minute to laugh at that? Thanks. *chuckle* Saying the universe has a meaning is like saying that the number 3 has a color. "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning" No, because we know things that have a meaning, which means that we can deduce what it means to not have any meaning. "just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." This analogy doesn't work because in our universe, we know things that have a meaning, but in this "universe", we don't know what light is.
Morals come from God.

You gave me those sources... One of those sources is skeptics.org... Your biased towards your own opinion. I am too. I wouldn't be able to trust those sources even if I were an atheist/agnostic. You can argue that morals are completely subjective all day long but you know a long with everyone else that morals are objective. C.S. Lewis summed it up good,"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too " for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist " in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless " I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality " namely my idea of justice " was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.*
Morals come from God.

In short, your argument says that because some killers were atheists, atheists are bad. Well, 4 out of 5 of the most important communists had mustaches, so does having a mustache make you a commie? No. Also, atheists who killed weren't "killing in the name of atheism." If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be "killing in the name of their religion" "But without God everything is justified by your/someone own actions." Nope. Everything is justified by the group you are in. If you kill your friends, you will most likely be hated, and probably executed. Refer back to my round 1 statement. "Atheists combined in the 20th century killed 100 million people. Christians, during the crusades and Inquisition killed 100,000 people." Let's find links for that! http://www.juancole.com... http://www.skepticink.com... Looks like Christians actually did kill more people in the 20th century! Who would have known? (anybody with a straight mind)
Morals come from God.

Humans may choose how to act (For the better good). For example, I may choose to say that killing six millions Jews is justified like Hitler believed. He got pretty much the whole Nazi party to buy in to what he was doing. A long with Stalin and Mao Ze Dong killing 60 million people combined. I'm not saying that you can't be moral without believing in God. But without God everything is justified by your/someone own actions. Atheists combined in the 20th century killed 100 million people. Christians, during the crusades and Inquisition killed 100,000 people.
Morals come from God.

Morals come from God. I believe what Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, " If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Since we know that certain actions are right and certain action are wrong there has to be a standard on how one ought to live. The Moral Law shapes us how we should live and we all know the right thing to do. It's all a matter of choice to follow the law. God has given us the Free Will to choose to do the right thing. Everyone's input is welcome.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

You make an excellent point about the long term effects of fast food. However, it is still a matter of lifestyle choice. Fast food is designed to offer delicious, tasty food in an expedient manner. Those who choose to make this their main source of nutrition are a fault for making poor dietary decisions. As alluring as the low-cost food may be, there are viable alternatives. Whole grain rice and legumes offer variety and necessary nutrients. Demonizing fast food as costing more contradicts the obvious: this form of food is readily available, generally inexpensive, and trusts the consumer to make an informed choice. An example of this is the dietary guidelines that accompany such food, whether in the packaging or on the menu board.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

Fast Food is costing the United States far more than healthy, organic food does. Some people complain that healthy food is more expensive than fast food. In reality though, fast food is costing the country millions of dollars more than healthy. People who are obese, have diabetes, high blood pressure and much more are results of eating harmful, unhealthy food such as fast food. The United States are spending millions of dollars on health care for hundreds of thousands of people across the US. Many people are sick from these foods because they contain many trans fats, sugars, sodium, and artificial ingredients. The food is just unnatural and unhealthy for any person to consume. If people would eat healthier, the country's debt would go down significantly.Millions of people would become healthier and happier. They wouldn't have to worry about taking medications for their sickness. Therefore, the country wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars on people who are obese and diabetic from eating fast food.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

I appreciate your concern for the evident obesity epidemic in this country. However, raising the price of fast food is not the solution. Better educating the public about health concerns, as well as making organic food more affordable, provides a more reasonable response to such issues. It would also be helpful to know how you would implement such a plan. Who raises the price on fast food? Are we looking to legislate healthy behavior? Fast food choices exist in European countries without the same impact on health. It is up to the consumer to not only learn about healthy choices, but make them for themselves and their families.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

I believe that fast food should cost more than healthy food. Fast food is extremely harmful to peoples' health, therefore it should be discouraged from people buying it. Since it is so inexpensive, though, people are more prone to buying it. Fast food is the culprit to America's obese society today. Many of these restaurants' food is loaded with fat, sugar and sodium. If that's not bad enough, the portions are huge, which makes the content of fat, sugar, and sodium even worse.These foods can increase peoples' blood pressure, make people gain excess fat, and lead to diabetes and heart attacks. If prices on fast food items were higher, people might think twice about getting a unhealthy meal and go to the super market instead.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

I agree with you in that we need to educate the people about the harm it does to one's health. The problem is, there have already been countless news stories, speeches, articles, television shows, and more dedicated to educating people of the unhealthy affects of fast food and its addiction it has on people. In spite of this, many people still choose not to listen. They still decide to keep coming back to their favorite fast food restaurant. They feel like they need it. The problem with this society is that people already know of the harmful affects of fast food, they just choose not to eat healthy.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

I agree this is a serious health problem in America, especially when it comes to the obesity rates in children. Nevertheless, just like Prohibition did not end alcohol consumption, neither will raising the cost of fast food result in alleviating the problems associated with obesity. The better solution is to educate people about healthy eating, continue to offer better choices of food (as many fast food restaurants are doing), and end the cycle of food addiction with informative and engaging public service announcements.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

Although Big Macs and fast food are not "forced" on people, it doesn't change the fact that they are addicted to the food. Selling it inexpensively doesn't help the consumer. Fast food is very tempting because of the low prices, the convenience, and the additives. The problem with it is it is so unhealthy and is killing Americans every year with obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and more. They eat it way too often, and eat extremely large portions. The food is so far from nutritious that people do not get full from it very easily. They have to eat more and more of it. That is why so many people are obese and have sicknesses. They eat too much of the fast food, and they can't digest all the fats, sugars, sodium, and harsh additives.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

Again, you bring up a central issue in this debate -- accountability. If most Americans still fail to realized fast food is unhealthy, I don't see how this provides a valid reason for increasing its cost. I honestly doubt most Americans believe a Big Mac is a healthy meal choice. Raising the prices will not change this fact. Better to raise awareness and let consumers make informed decisions. Also, even fast food restaurants have provided healthy alternatives. At McDonald's, for example, kid's happy meals come with booklets providing nutritional information. Just like the exposure of pink meat has resulted in its removal, as has the eliminating of trans fats (with a final complete reduction in the near future), the use of additives will only change when consumers demand it does. No one is forcing those Big Macs and super-sized meals on anyone.
Fast Food -- Why it is Needed.

Some healthy foods may be cheap, but it doesn't take away the fact that fast food should be more expensive. One of the reasons fast food is so inexpensive is that it is loaded with artificial ingredients that cost companies next to nothing. The major problem with these artificial ingredients is that they are highly addictive. Why do you think so many people come again and again to places like McDonald's and Burger King? It is because they are literally addicted to the food. Ingredients such as casein are added to French fries, buns, milk shakes, desserts, creamy salad dressings, whipped toppings, sausages, and more. Casein is created by adding calcium hydrogen phosphate to concentrated milk solids. It is the addictive ingredient in cheese and other foods int the fast food industry. Other harmful ingredients such as MSG can hide low quality food with flavor. Many people across the nation don't realize how harmful fast food really is for their body.
The 10 commandments: What true downers they all are

Of course you will not be able to complete your response. Whatever gave you the first clue as you shimmy up your crickety chimney? Your response was so incomplete that I’m just not going to respond. Respond to what I said in complete detail in the third round as grouped as one portion IN WHICH YOU BROUGHT UP IN ROUND 2 and I responded to in turn, not just one small portion in which is most certainly is incomplete on your part in the third round or don’t respond at all. We’re done.
The 10 commandments: What true downers they all are

"You can't just pick apart the parts you like and toss away the rest." I'm not saying we should abide by the laws of people who lived thousands of years ago, I'm saying there is wisdom contained in texts like the Bible and that we should not disregard them so eagerly. I'm aware that many Christians take the Bible as literally true, but they do not represent everyone person who believes the Bible has value. You say people teach us how to interpret Shakespeare and that's the only reason we gain wisdom from his stories. This is not necessarily true, as the people who developed these interpretations had no one teaching them, and we are perfectly free to deny the validity of theirs and develop our own. This has happened many times with many documents, including the Bible. I will not be able to complete my response.
Japan was a morally wrong country

First off I would like to inquire my opponent on what exactly we are debating as there is certainly confusion on are we debating that Japan is currently immoral or it was immoral in the past. Never the less we will need a definition of moral which I will provide here: Moral: [1] of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. I'm also going to assume this round is where we address our opening statements as well. Morals are not a set in stone rule book that tells us right from wrong. Morals are a personal belief that we all live by. For example someone who regularly goes to church and is an avid believer in God may think it is extremely immoral that atheists don"t believe in God. Does that mean we should force all atheists to accept God? No they have their own morals and chose to live by them. My main point is that just because one society or group of people has a different set of beliefs doesn't mean they are not moral. We may not like morals of other countries and in fact we may not accept them which is why most wars occur to argue which morals are better is a different debate. [1] http://www.dictionary.com...