BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

Parents know the children best and have their best interests at heart more than a doctor or judge who does not know the child personally. Doctors and judges may be bias towards cost and see the expense of terminal care more than they see the benefits it can have. A parents responsibility is being 'eroded' if they have not got the final say in whether their child lives or dies. The children's interests should always prevail and how are doctors and judges sitting at their desks to really know what those interests are? Occasionally doctors can be wrong, having no faith in the child getting better and thinking its best to stop care when with examples like Charlotte Wyatt they do get better and they live on to are far greater age than expected.
this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

Let me be extremely clear to avoid my argument being missed, when I talk of terminal care I mean to say when the child’s disease has progressed to a point at which curative treatment is no longer applicable and the child is beyond recovery, in most cases a permanent vegetative state. Why should the state have any authority over the parent? We live in an open, free society where the parents are help responsible for the welfare of their children to the point where if they are not doing an adequate job they can be persecuted and their children can be taken away from them. If the parents are held with complete responsibility of their children in this case, what possible justification does the state have to overrule the parents wishes? The parents are the ones that brought the child into this world, the parents are the ones that have loved this child, brought the child up and they are the ones that will suffer the most from whatever decision is made. The state does not know this child and has no responsibility for it. Anyone who disagrees must be in accordance with a totalitarianism state such as a Stalinist Russia where the state would have had an overruling say over the parents judgement.I accept that terminal care can be expensive, and so as long as the parents are willing to shoulder the costs of their decision what grounds does the state have to overrule this? I also accept that the parents have to be capable of making such decisions, if they are in any way mentally troubled or previously not abiding by the law then I do not think these sorts of parents are fit for such decisions in which case, it should be up to the state. But In most cases the parents are capable of making a decision that is for the best. I conclude by saying that the state has no possible means of justifying its intervention when regarding life and death, Since when was the state a giver and taker of life? To suggest this would be in agreement with a totalitarianism state. The parents are the ones who are responsible for their child and they are the ones who can legitimately make decisions for their children providing they are willing to accept the responsibilities whether that be the cost of terminal care or the despair defying nature and of outliving their children. May I thank you for accepting this motion. The0
Time does not exist

"You assume that time exists and that you changed it. Once again, you do not prove that we interact with time, simply that we perform actions." Your argument isn't specific to our time argument though. I'll say that space doesn't exist, and then refute it by saying that if I push a chair over, I am influencing space. It's possible that the chair and everything only exist in my mind, but empirical evidence says that space exists. So perhaps I can't prove space exists beyond a doubt, but it can't be disproved with this argument at least. Same goes for time, as I said in Round 3. We are both wrong with this argument. "We created "time" to help live of lives and correlate a standard system among humans. Like said earlier, we run at different paces. We created "time" to interact with each other. Thus, time does not really exist. It is all a figment of our imagination." You still haven't fully explained this argument. Do we all imagine time collectively? If so, how did that come about; did the length of a day used to be different every week? And I don't see how running at different times proves it's non-existence; only that we have different body structures; and on that note you still haven't explained your earlier claim that if time existed we'd all run at the same speed. As I said earlier if time really didn't exist we would have complete control over it since we control our imaginations. Under this theory I could extend the 72 hour period we have to post arguments for myself to an indefinite time; thus it would still be 3 days for you and as much time as I wanted for me. But I can't, so clearly there is some outside force making 72 hours the same duration for everyone. "You claim that we live in different presents. If this is true, then time does not exist. Time, as stated in previous rounds, must have a past and a future. If not, we are changing positions over one "time" period or simply through our 3D world, and not changing through time. " The "multiple presents" are the past and the future, just in different words. We are always living in the present, we just move from a different series of presents to another, and call what was behind "past" and what is ahead "future". And we don't have to travel through space to travel through time. As I'm sitting here, the sun is setting, leaves are growing on trees, yet I am not moving. But the world is changing around me. The movement we do is through the time's track, which is a straight line hence why we can't go back and forth. To summarize: 1. Influencing something cannot prove or disprove the existence of time because whether we influence it or not all depends on whether it exists, the original argument. But, there is other evidence that time exists: 2. If time were just in our imaginations then we would be able to control it, but we can't so it must be a separate, outside force. 3. The past and the future do exist, however you want to term them, it's just that we do not have the freedom to move through time like we do through space.
Time does not exist

You begin this round by claiming that we influence actions which influence what will happen – thus – influencing time. Sadly, you have one flaw in this argument. You assume that time exists and that you changed it. Once again, you do not prove that we interact with time, simply that we perform actions. When I claim that we should not be debating man's specification of time, what I was trying to avoid was this. We say that time exists. We have minutes. Therefore, time exists. To me it seemed like we were leaning closer towards that. Your next argument attempts to explain how we follow time. You claim that the sun always rotates in the same speed etc etc. The point I was trying to get at was this: There is no dimension called time. We, as humans, create "time" around certain action in order to better explain life. You assessment gives credit to this "Time does not dictate our bodies, but we are still dependent on time because if it were in fact only based on our experiences, then our physical limitations might be dependent on our minds instead of other outside forces." We created "time" to help live of lives and correlate a standard system among humans. Like said earlier, we run at different paces. We created "time" to interact with each other. Thus, time does not really exist. It is all a figment of our imagination. Onto the confusing argument You claim that we live in different presents. If this is true, then time does not exist. Time, as stated in previous rounds, must have a past and a future. If not, we are changing positions over one "time" period or simply through our 3D world, and not changing through time. ******* I conclude this great round with some wrap-up points 1. Time is a figment of our imaginations. 2. Time can not be influenced in any manner by man, and does not exist 3. We move through our 3D dimension, not time dimension TIME DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Time does not exist

"I am not claiming we can not interact with time directly, I am claiming we can not interact with time AT ALL. I can interact with someone's thoughts. I can influence them. I can say something that makes someone think a certain way. The dimension of time has no interaction of any sense. This proves that time does not exist. If we can not interact with time at all, it can not exist." We can influence time; this is going to be a little confusing. Actually, we can only influence the events in time, but this is analogous to influencing thoughts. When we affect someone else's thoughts, we aren't affecting the essence of thoughts, but the products of it. Similarly, we affect the products of time, i.e. the events. Let's assume free will, or that future events are not predetermined. I am faced with two job opportunities, A and B. Both are very different and my life will be altered depending on which one I choose, so by picking one I am affecting time. "What you are arguing in man's specification of time. This I claimed earlier needs to be excluded from this debate." We've been arguing this point for a few rounds; I didn't think it was out of the rules "We call it 10 minutes, just as we call it 10 meters, or feet, etc. The regulation force for our actions is our bodies capabilities. Two runners are running their fastest and feel like they are flying. One's body allows him to go faster than the other. Time has no relation to this." You said in the previous Round that if time were real then everyone could run at the exact same speed, but you made this argument earlier: "The movie seems to end very quickly even if it lasts 3 hours...We imagine time and how long something takes." But to me all of these support the idea that time exists. You assert that we essentially make up time in our minds, so however long we feel time has passed has passed, but this is not true because I can feel like time is moving fast or slow, yet certain things will remain constant, such as the position of the sun, or how fast a train is moving. And as to the argument about how if time were real we would all run the same speed, I don't see how that would work. Time does not dictate our bodies, but we are still dependent on time because if it were in fact only based on our experiences, then our physical limitations might be dependent on our minds instead of other outside forces. I get your past/future argument, it's a very good one. However I still have to content it: "Position A still is in the present, so past does not exist. If position A becomes the past, was it ever the present?" Position A is a different present; we used to live in it and now don't. We always live in the present, but not the same present. "If A was the present, and is now the past, then A must change somehow." Why must it change just because we are no longer living in it? As for time existing, my second argument, regarding the two runners is my proof. Human experience does not dictate time because we are always on a constant track regardless of how we feel, as I explained above.
Time does not exist

I am not claiming we can not interact with time directly, I am claiming we can not interact with time AT ALL. I can interact with someone's thoughts. I can influence them. I can say something that makes someone think a certain way. The dimension of time has no interaction of any sense. This proves that time does not exist. If we can not interact with time at all, it can not exist. What you are arguing in man's specification of time. This I claimed earlier needs to be excluded from this debate. We call it 10 minutes, just as we call it 10 meters, or feet, etc. The regulation force for our actions is our bodies capabilities. Two runners are running their fastest and feel like they are flying. One's body allows him to go faster than the other. Time has no relation to this. This is me trying to explain my crazy argument: A is a position I am at. B is the NEW position I am at. When I am at A, it is the present. When I am at B, it is the present. Position A still is in the present, so past does not exist. If position A becomes the past, was it ever the present? If A was the present, and is now the past, then A must change somehow. A does not change at all. Everything is the same. A is still present, as B is too. Time ceases to exist. Now I have given many reasons why time does not exist. Do you offer any proof that time does exist?
Time does not exist

"And finally, if we can not interact with something, it does not exist. You simply claim that there is a good chance that it does not exist. But all you give is a CLAIM. Where is some reasoning behind your assessment that something can exist that we can not interact with it?" You're relying on our subjectives experiences, saying that if we cannot interact with something directly then it can't exist. I can't directly interact with someone else's thoughts. Just because I can't see or hear them thinking doesn't mean that they're not. It's true that I don't know for sure if they are or not, but this does not disprove it. I realize that this puts a damper in my argument about experiences, I can't prove it, BUT you can't disprove that time doesn't exist based on the fact that we don't interact with it. "What you are assuming is that we follow laws of time, not laws of our body. I can run a mile in say like 10 minutes. You can run a mile in like 3? minutes." We follow the laws of our bodies, yes, but what is dictating the difference between 10 and 3 minutes? If time was completely subjective to ourselves then if during one run I felt I was going particularly fast I might finish in 2 minutes. In another where I felt I was running slower I might finish in 12 minutes, even though the laws of my body are the same in both races. The fact is, I can feel like I'm flying and still be the last one to finish. There has to be a regulating force, i.e., time. "There is a past and future. We are only in the present. These can not coincide as I have explained. (I realize this is really confusing). Since the laws can not exist together, time can not exist." The present becomes the past and the future becomes the present. We are always living in a specific present, but have lived in other presents and will live in other; and we have termed these past and future.
Time does not exist

This is obviously we I must disagree. You're only claim here to why it exists is because we can experience it. First, how do we experience time? Second, an experience does not mean something exists. Say I take some LSD, and hallucinate some thing. Call it Thing D. I imagine it. I think it is real. Thing D is not real. It is a figment of my imagination. How is this not like time? And finally, if we can not interact with something, it does not exist. You simply claim that there is a good chance that it does not exist. But all you give is a CLAIM. Where is some reasoning behind your assessment that something can exist that we can not interact with it? What you are assuming is that we follow laws of time, not laws of our body. I can run a mile in say like 10 minutes. You can run a mile in like 3? minutes. So, we can perform actions at different "times". How do you explain this? If time was real, everyone could run a mile in exactly 4.57678… minutes. But we do not follow time. Time does not exist. We follow our bodies laws. Here you contradict yourself. You claim we are living in the present with different presents. You then say memories and prediction prove that a past and future exist. HOW! If they exist, how are we always in the present. Our time has two rules. We both agree on these so far. There is a past and future. We are only in the present. These can not coincide as I have explained. (I realize this is really confusing). Since the laws can not exist together, time can not exist.
Time does not exist

Again, just because you can't influence, interact, control, affect, whatever with something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. These make it likely that it doesn't, but in time's case we know that it exists through our experiences in it. This brings me to your cave scenario. Say you went into the cave at 4 PM and came out at 8. Maybe in the cave if feels like time has stopped, but when we go outside we'll see that it's dark now where is was light earlier. Obviously something has happened while we were doing nothing. The amount of time here is crucial too. Let's say that A goes in the cave, and no matter how long he's in there, it's going to feel like a day. But if he comes out in five minutes a day has not passeed; there are things that can happen in a day but can't in five minutes. Human experience of time is skewed, but we are on some track that is regulated. Otherwise I could theoretically make it to work in 30 seconds when it's normally a twenty minute drive, just by getting myself in the correct state of mind. Maybe on that drive I'm rushing and so it seems faster, but I'm still no later for work then I was before. Your argument makes use of the words past, present, and future; but they are only words. We are always living in the present, but there are different presents. And because we move through time on a straight line, some presents have to come before others, so we say past and future. "If the past never existed, and the future never will exist, how can we see into the past and think into the future?" You made my point for me. Our memories and our ability or predict is some proof of time.
Time does not exist

Thanks for taking this debate. My claim that we can not control is that we can never influence time at all. We can never interact with it. You could possibly fly to Japan and touch that person. You have the capability to affect them. We can interact with the air. We touch it. We can touch the sun (we would die but it is a possible action). We can not touch, feel, or interact with time. We do not move through time. (new argument). Here is an example. We could live in a cave for 4 hours and do nothing. To us, time has not passed. We can watch a movie. The movie seems to end very quickly even if it lasts 3 hours. We do not move through time. We imagine time and how long something takes. Here is the flaw in your ocean-time comparison. The Ocean meets the first argument I made. We can interact with it. We can not interact with time, so how can we name it. I can call this new element, element X, Cody. Now element Cody has a name. But it does not exist. A name does not give meaning. Here is another confusing issue about time (again new argument). What is the present. This is a very philosophical argument. Let us assume that time does exist. If so, we will also assume that there is a past, present, and future. We remember (past), we live (present), and we predict (future). So, we live in the present. We must ALWAYS live in the present. If not, we would not exist. Correct? So if we are always in the present, when is it ever that past or future. Assuming this, we always live in the present, the present is always the place in "time" we exist. Therefore, the past never existed. Furthermore, the future will never happen. If the past never existed, and the future never will exist, how can we see into the past and think into the future?
Time does not exist

This sounds like a fun philosophical debate; greetings cody! You claim that because we cannot control time that it does not exist. This is a fallacy; just because you're not in control of something doesn't mean that it's not real. For example, I do not have control over what someone in Japan does, and anything I do will likely not effect them. This doesn't mean that people in Japan don't exist. This is a less dramatic example, but the principle is the same. We do move through time, but on a straight line rather then 3 dimensions. It's true we cannot move through time like we can through space, but this only means that we are constricted in our movement in time; not that it is a figment of our imagination. Again, even though we don't have control doesn't mean it's not real. You say that man invented time to explain things, but time is not like a fairy tale. Early man sees the ocean. He experiences it, and and he also experiences time through his memories. He invents a story to explain why the ocean is there, and he might invent one for how time started, but the concept of time as we know it is a label, not an explanation. Man sees the ocean and calls it an ocean, and he also sees his memories, the present, and predicts the future and calls that time.
Time does not exist

Before beginning this round, I would like to clarify a few things: We are debating the essence of time, not a humans sense of time, measurement of time, or time as a word. ************************T I M E L E S S************************************ So this is where the actual debate comes in. I feel time, as a dimension or "universe" is false. We live in a 3D world. We have depth. We can move forward, up, left, etc. We can not move across time. We exist. We can not slow down time. We can not speed up time. We can move from one time period to another. Sense we do not interact with time, it is not part of our "dimension". Since time does not exist, I believe "time" is simply a mental invention of man to better understand out own actions. This is shown through remembering or predicting. We are not controlling time, we are imagining a past "time". Since "time" is only a figment of our imagination, it does not actually exist.