BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raepd women should be euthanized

Good point. The definition of rape in this debate is "an activity that involves physical virginal, oral and/or anal penetration on a female's body by a male using his penis, regardless of or in spite of the female's lack of dissent or refusal." The state of mind of raped women renders them impossible to make a clear, one-answer question to the question of being euthanized at all. It hardly matters how many days pass by after their rape, since the effect of the event and their trauma remains for a very long time. Ask a raped woman about their rape experience, and the majority of them will go awfully berserk just at the mention of it or their recollection of it, no matter how past it became. Euthanizing them will put them to eternal rest where they no longer have to experience their psychological pain. The current law regarding euthanasia does not reflect any progressive viewpoint that can be helpful to raped women. Instead, it just facilitates an environment where raped women are forced to suffer from their trauma without any fundamental solution to it. If the law is wrong, it should be changed. In history, there have already been many times where faulty laws have been discarded or amended - the same can be done for the euthanization of raped women. The "soul of murder" was brought up by people who claim to provide "support" or "counseling" for those raped women or research rape. I myself do not know what methods they use to judge the murder of soul of raped women, but we can be sure that those rape-help supporters or researchers, who closely work with those rapd women, are quite knowledgeable when they state that rape kills the soul. Based on that, we can establish that raped women do not have a soul, and since a human being without a soul is not at all considered in any common sense to be a human. We have seen, albeit only in fictions, the "people" without soul - they are called zombies. It is just flatly risible to argue that zombies are entitled to human rights. One of the universally accepted truths is that it is OK to cull animals. While vegetarians may oppose this idea and activity altogether, they constitute a minority in this world and thus can be disregarded. Moreover, culling raped women is more than just merely culling animals. Their euthanization provides them a meaningful exit from their everlasting torment and to the place where they can rest peacefully. It is for the good of the raped women. And if you believe that raped women still retain their soul after their rape as a human being, euthanizing them still adheres to the ethical treatment of humanity by respecting their rights to escape from pain.
Raepd women should be euthanized

In this case, we must define the definition of "rape". Rape can be classified as penetrating a women, or it can simply be classified by touching or hitting. I never implicated that women were required just for making babies. I said that is one of their uses, but I never said that it was their only use. Please stop putting words in my mouth. As for your argument that the dissent of raped women should be disregarded, I don't think asking them if they wish to be killed is a good way to relieve some of their trauma. Of course they will suffer from some trauma, and of course they might be incoherent. However, after a day or two, most cases will be at least able to provide a clear, one-word answer to the question of euthanasia. Also, another point I would like to bring up is that euthanasia is illegal in all countries with the exception of Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. In this case, any form of euthanasia is considered murder unless you live in those three countries. Also, "A murder of a soul" is only possible if a soul exists, but since I don't want to get into a debate within a debate, I will just say this: How does anyone know for sure that a woman loses her soul if she is raped? Can we sense when a soul is lost? If we do not know for sure that a raped woman loses her soul, then she cannot be considered an animal, therefore, she is still considered a human, and retains her human rights. Raped women cannot be considered non-human, and when you say that culling animals is not a big deal, that is just a matter of opinion.
Raepd women should be euthanized

By your argument, since women suffer from PTD, all men and children who are also raped should be euthanized, shouldn't they? Just because men are a different gender, doesn't mean that they won't suffer from post-traumatic disorder. Also, women are needed for continuing the future of the human race, for every women you kill, you kill a child, and you kill his/her ancestors, therefore, you kill a entire lineage of people.
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

Ok fine, healthcare for the poor. What about VA, Medicaid, and Medicare? As a Harvard grad I totally understand how high our tuition fees are, but I"m okay with that as we have the best colleges in the world. You said proxy wars, so I proved that not all proxy wars are bad. Debt collectors have every right to demand money from people who haven"t paid back their debts There is nothing wrong with separating kids from their parents at the border (up for debate). We don"t have a gun problem, and our laws aren"t lax enough (up for debate). I live in New Jersey, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I"m not even allowed to carry a firearm in public. 1. Guantanamo Bay is just a name without meaning now. Even if we close it down, what we do there will just be relocated somewhere else. 2. Just simply releasing the detainees is just not a realistic option. 3. Changing the location of the detainees just isn"t legally significant. 4. Gitmo isn"t Gulag. How do you prove America as a whole is racist? What"s wrong with our military? The death penalty is fine. People who kill should be killed.
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

If you are calling the 42.9 million Americans who have unpaid medical bills "a few poor people" you cannot do maths, which is probably because of the incredibly high tuition fees they have in America. Also what have WWI and WW2 got to do with the racism and sexism of Donald Trump, the debt collectors demanding money from unpaid medical bills, and children being separated from their parents by the cruelty of your disgusting Republican president? (by the way, all of the presidents that were in the world wars were Democrats). Britain is grateful to America for that and always will be. What they are not grateful for however is far right Trump supporters using their country's intervention in the world wars as an excuse for their effect on everywhere else in the world. Also with your saying that there should be good healthcare for the rich people or quote-on-quote "the greater good" you could be compared to Grindelwald, the evil wizard in Harry Potter, have a look: http://harrypotter.wikia.com... Healthcare is not the only thing I can think of, it's just the thing that I focused on. Would you like me to focus on gun crime and lax gun laws, Guantanamo Bay, racism, the military, or the tuition fees or the death penalty, or the greedy Capitalist Republicans who don't care about workers rights. What do you want? And as for your R.I.P's: R.I.P Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif (one of the many people who died at Guantanamo Bay)
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

Hi, I love the UK, I have a house in London and Edinburgh. I spent almost 1/4 of my year there! So onto your debate. Clearly, you didn't bother to read the article. I would argue European countries envy our healthcare system. Sure a few poor people can't afford it. But for everyone else (the greater good) we get spectacular healthcare. Wait times are much better in the USA. UK, France, Sweden, Canada " most of the darlings of Single Payer System is experiencing longer and longer wait times. Government bureaucrats just can't react fast enough to know how many specialists to hire or where critical medical equipment needs to go. If there is a life or death situation there is a reason why foreigners come to the USA when things are dire and they are rich. You can get world-class care at places like Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, and NY Presby and see the best doctors with the best equipment in the entire world. Most hospitals in the USA have the latest technology and best-trained people. The threat of a lawsuit demands hospitals stay up to par otherwise they could get sued. In a single payer system equipment is often outdated and or at least aging. The drive to stay cutting edge disappears in single-payer systems" there is no competition. Pharmaceuticals are at the cutting edge as well. The USA leads the world in healthcare technology innovation. No one is even a decent second. You can add up all the Research and Development dollars invested in all the single payer systems all of Europe and they don't come even close to 25% of what the USA spends. Do you now see? And btw, the minimum wage should be $1.00 - $2.00 an hour. P.S. It's sad that the best thing you could come up with was healthcare. Even if America was slipping on the healthcare front, we still dominate in everything else. P.S.S. As I've said sure Vietnam, but what about WWI and WWII your precious British Isles would be decimated if not for us. R.I.P Sir Winston Churchill
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

"If you are in the upper-middle class " is what the website said. what if you aren't upper middle class, like the other 70.8% of the US population. What if you are living on the US's minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and cannot afford surgery or injections etc. In the UK there is a choice. You can take the NHS for free, and get perfectly good healthcare. Or, if you are rich, you can go one step up and take private healthcare, but there is something for everyone. Im not saying that it doesn't need reform, the NHS is extremely underfunded by our Tory government. But it is better than being hounded by debt collectors and not being able to pay tour medical bills. The US invests $601 billion in the military and still gets beaten by Vietnam. Instead of getting smashed to pieces by developing countries, why not spend your money on a national health service, so everyone in America can get affordable, if not free healthcare. I mean, Obamacare was better than nothing, but then Trump, who would "Make America Great Again", came in and made healthcare only affordable for the rich. Also, have you not noticed that the only reason that your country has so much gun crime. Donald Trump says that if everyone in England carried a gun, there wouldn't be any knife. The only reason that there is no knife crime in America is because your gun laws are so lax that people go around shooting each other instead.
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

Ok fine, we don"t have an NHS and being an American I"m fine with that. Since we pay for healthcare we get much better and higher quality. For instance the UK is very famous for their healthcare. Except UK has a hospital death rate of 45% more than US hospitals. While yes, the broke people of America can"t afford healthcare, thats a small price to pay for the whole rest of the population getting extremely good healthcare. Sure Vietnam was a proxy war, and it was bad one. It WWI and WWII were also proxy wars, and thanks to us we aren"t debating in German. With America literally policing the world and having troops in many worn torn countries like the Middle East and Korea it is crucial we have a state of the art military (which we do). This is why Americans have the luxury of never thinking of getting invaded. What do you mean we can"t afford education and other public services? http://www.businessinsider.com...
The USA Is Superior To Every Other Country

The USA is not superior to every other country. This is because firstly, they don't have a national health service, so everyone with not enough money cant afford health care. Second of all, they invade lots of countries needlessly, or have proxy wars: (ie. the Vietnam War) which cause lots of damage to the planet. Also, because they spend so much money on the military, (and barely win 50% of their wars anyway) they cannot afford education and other public services. I can list loads of countries with and NHS: 1938Two Tier Japan1938Single Payer Germany1941Insurance Mandate Belgium1945Insurance Mandate United Kingdom1948Single Payer Kuwait1950Single Payer Sweden1955Single Payer Bahrain1957Single Payer Brunei1958Single Payer Canada1966Single Payer Netherlands1966Two-Tier Austria1967Insurance Mandate United Arab Emirates1971Single Payer Finland1972Single Payer Slovenia1972Single Payer Denmark1973Two-Tier Luxembourg1973Insurance Mandate France1974Two-Tier Australia1975Two Tier Ireland1977Two-Tier Italy1978Single Payer Portugal1979Single Payer Cyprus1980Single Payer Greece1983Insurance Mandate Spain1986Single Payer South Korea1988Insurance Mandate Iceland1990Single Payer Hong Kong Singapore Switzerland Israel Just so you know, the US is not on this list. that is why, the US is not superior to every other country.
Formal Education does not equal success in later life.

Pro forfeits. I have shown that a person will not necessarily be successful just because they have a education. Because people can have ambitions that push them to success. Only through a formal system of learning can a country can develop a society and achieve goals. It is so harder to get a oppurtunity for a job without a formal education. Economic growth are the importance of fundamental cognitive skills. I have shown the majority of people who have formal education have a increase in IQ. I thank the readers and Pro.
Formal Education does not equal success in later life.

Economic growth Pro assesses that I am presenting Formal Education as necessary for economic stability and employment. Pro is right and this can lead everyone to success, no matter what job or function they perform. Pro has basically conceded most of this argument. Advantages of education Pro is incorrect in assuming I am limiting education to just college or school. People can read and learn on their own but a formal education gives you the greatest chance of success. A steady job or pay is always considered a success. This gives one the ability to further themselves and also their family. Improvements in IQ are remarkably consistent across the whole spectrum. This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary. . http://eyeonsociety.co.uk... IQ tests are scored with respect to those standardization samples. The only way to compare the difficulty of two versions of a test is to conduct a study in which the same subjects take both versions. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the U. S. on tests such as the WISC. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponents tests do not mention the previous levels of IQ. Therefore, his test leaves out that peoples IQ were lower previously to the results of the test he gave us. He also asserts that it is impossible to rise higher in IQ or intelligence. Pro does not even show us the importance of IQ. We have schools and classes for those with less intelligence or slower learning. I have shown the majority of people who have formal education have a increase in IQ. Pro drops my economic argument and concedes points to the advantages of Formal Education. The only point Pro makes is the one about students who cannot keep up in school, which is addressed with certain schools or classes especially for these students. This point fails by the lack of evidence. I think I have provided most of the evidence in this debate and Pro has the burden of proof. I send it back to Pro.
Formal Education does not equal success in later life.

Thank you to the Con for his well-researched and thought provoking points. However, the Pro cannot help feeling that the Con sees the debate motion in a very different manner to the Pro. It appears that the Con's arguments revolve mainly around the fact that Formal Education is necessary for economic stability and employment. Without wanting to offend the Con, this seems to tell the Pro that my opponent is a part of the society we live in which convinces us that "success" is a steady job and teaches us to learn to work in a hierarchical system. In the Pro's opinion, Formal Education does not cater to a high percentage of human beings. Seeing that the average IQ is between 90 and 110 points (brainmetrix.com), which is undoubtedly not a high level of intelligence, it goes to show that the majority of students are pushed towards jobs in an economic sector that makes it impossible to rise higher because of their intelligence. Seeing that the majority of people with lower intelligence quotients do not shine in Formal Education systems, all the Pro is arguing is the Formal Education does not lead to success. It may be necessary for Economical and Social reasons, but Formal Education is geared towards those with higher IQ's and does not cater to the needs of a person of more average intelligence. Thank you once again to the Con for his arguments and I send it back to him. Sources used: http://www.studymode.com... http://www.wordexplorer.com...
Formal Education does not equal success in later life.

Although there is no doubt that formal education provides a "groundwork" for students (time management, business models), it does not encourage the things that lead to success: "out of the box" thinking and following one's passions. Some of the most successful people in the world today such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates did not complete formal education (School and an Undergraduate degree), but instead pursued their own personal ideas. Formal Education teaches you to permanently work under the influence of a "teacher", presuming this will prepare you for working for a boss in later life. This is a huge issue with formal education, as obviously not everyone is suited to working under a boss in an organisation, and this system would indeed cause many people to have an unhappy career, but formal education naturally pushes everybody who completes it in the direction of working within a corporation under a boss because of the learning structure within classrooms.
gamestop should give out games and one new thing and give it to us for free

=========== I think that GameStop should stay the way it is, because if they where to give away games it would do a few things to the economy. If the store where to give away games for FREE, after a while, GameStop wouldn't be in business anymore. When GameStop goes out of business, while being one of the most popular gaming store, people will be confused and searching for another good gaming store. =========== I feel strongly about my standing and I hope to see you
Free will is an incoherent concept.

Splitting hairs about existence and essence is not relevant to this discussion because the underpinning of essence lies in the idea of identity. In order to have free will you must have an identity and a will and it must be free (separate from "outside influences"). I have presented arguments that the concept of "identity" is incoherent because there is nothing fundamental that separates us from "outside influences". Certainly our bodies (genetics) can't define the separation of self from "outside influences". We also cannot use the existence of an apparent "mind" as evidence of separation from "outside influences" because it is built from the ground up, inside and out, completely from "outside influences". It also follows that the concept of "will" is incoherent because there is nothing fundamental that separates our "will" from "outside influences". The claim that perhaps free will only exists in special circumstances and may be some fleeting mental state does nothing at all to address the original problem that both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with the concept of "choice" regardless of the time span involved. It is impossible for someone to "determine their own fate" because everything you call "you" is one hundred percent influenced by events that are either determined or indetermined (either probabilistic or random). Just a note here, probabilistic influences are partly determined and partly indetermined. A lot of people think that the existence of probabilistic influences allow some wiggle room in an otherwise deterministic universe for human free will. It does no such thing. If this were true, then we would be forced to acknowledge that quarks and lasers have free will. A so called probabilistic decision is no more of a "choice" than a purely random outcome.
Free will is an incoherent concept.

I like how you have decided to approach this subject by implicitly breaking it into two key areas. First, the nature vs. nurture conversation is a classic example of how people try to define and account for so called "outside influences". Secondly, this leads us to the fundamental question of identity. We seek to define "internal influences" vs. "outside influences" and we like to believe that "internal influences" are the "I" and everything else is "outside influence" this is where we get our sense of self. Our individual sense of self is the most personal and sensitive (often fragile) concept we hold dear. If someone's sense of self is called into question, it is not uncommon for a whole host of automatic cognitive defense systems kick into high gear. I will try to avoid triggering a hypothalmic-pituitary-adrenal response to this discussion. Here's the crux, the fundamental structures of your brain are not subject to your will. Your will is an emergent property of your brain's ability to process information. Neither the brain, nor the information is subject to your will. In fact, your will is subject to the brain and the information it is exposed to. Your genetic structure is beyond your own choice and therefore lies in the territory previously identified as "outside influences". There are only "outside influences". Your "identity" is little more than an echo in a very complicated cave. The cave does not contain an uncaused cause. It may have some random influences, and it may be very complex, but that hardly constitutes a "will". Yes, your ability to process information develops over time and is apparently self-influencing. However, your ability to self-influence or self-modify your own thought process is built from the ground up from genetics and information. Your early childhood experiences have an outsized influence on how your information processing framework develops. These foundational experiences are not subject to your will. Instead, what is commonly identified as your "will" is merely a product of the very complicated process of your genetics interacting with information. So, I guess what I'm saying is that everything is either random or not random, or some clever combination, therefore you do not exist. Or rather your idea of a "self" possessing an "independent will" or "first cause" is incoherent.
Free will is an incoherent concept.

Although normally I would agree on the grounds of Determinism and Indeterminism, I would also like to broaden the horizons of this debate a little bit and give you a debate that I hope you enjoy. So, here goes nothing. While yes determinism states that all actions are predetermined and a person cannot be held morally responsible for these actions, I have somewhat an idea to go along with the essence before existence and existence before essence theory, as well as existentialism. Essence before existence states that your fate and you as a person are determined before you are even born. However the opposite is just as plausible, you determine your own fate after birth. Due to the ideologies of existentialism, a person makes choices through their own will that determine their "essence", making free will completely possible. While you are looking at this with narrow view I'm only trying to get you to widen that view and look at free will a little differently. I will leave you with a question. According to you, are you formed as a being before or after birth?