BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

I apologize for not clarifying, I shouldn't have assumed it was implied. Maybe it is not impossible for a cure to be found however if a patient has made up their mind to go, can we be forced to stop them? Perhaps we keep them alive for a little while longer but their mental thoughts of still wanting to die may never change. There is also the aspect that for some terminally ill and/or mentally ill patients that their minds and/or body start to deteriorate. Some people want to die with what dignity they have left, i.e. they want their loved ones to remember when they were active---not when, say, they were in a bed soiling themselves. Perhaps you're correct that it would not suddenly make the ethical issues 'okay' but I think they could be overlooked. Yes a doctor is sworn to protect and help the patient however if the alternative to death is living X amount of time in excruciating pain---wouldn't they be helping their patient by putting them out of their misery? If you look at the lesser of the two evils then technically their is no breach of morals if they're still doing what is in the best interest of the patient. As for your second statement I was more referring to the, "suicide is a symptom of mental illness. Over 90% of those who commit suicide have a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of death" part. But acknowledging your other statement, yes it goes against natural instincts but then again plenty of us do things that go against our natural instincts. (for example, a mother giving up her child as woman are born with that maternal instinct) It cannot just be limited to suicide. I don't think that is grounds for a mental illness though. As you said before, it is a symptom of a mental illness but not one itself. I believe, if assisted suicide was legalized, my 'regulations' (full psych work ups) I proposed would weed out the difference between maybe depression caused suicide and just plain ready to die suicide. If the mind has logically--with no contributing forces--decided its ready to go than that decision should be allowed to the patient. And, again, it could possibly end up saving lives by correctly identifying people who are depressed and getting them help. I'm sorry I misunderstood your point there. Why is it wrong to end your own life when it causes no physical harm to anyone else? Yes it is illegal for you to walk up and shoot a terrorist the same as a child however that's also causing harm to someone else not yourself. If you're implying it is morally wrong to do so then perhaps it is however if you're not hurting anyone else in your actions then I see no harm no foul.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

First, you have significantly altered the debate with your statement that you are "referring to terminally ill patients that doctors say will be dead in a couple months or so." That was not mentioned in your opening statement. However, I believe that all of my arguments still stand because it is not impossible for a cure to be discovered in that couple of months, or for the disease to go into remission, or even for a miracle to happen (even if you don't believe in God, quantum uncertainty and the laws of probabilities make it possible). I disagree with your statement that a contract and further tests would "bypass the doctors' ethical obligations." If physician assisted suicide was legalized, it would solve the LEGAL problems, but it would do nothing for the ethical issues. I still hold that a doctor knowingly allowing a person to kill themselves is a breach of ethics under nearly any circumstances. (there are exceptions such as warfare, but none that are relevant to this debate). In completely agreeing with my second argument, are you also agreeing to the part that says "The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct." ? Augustine's point stands regardless of actual innocence. It is just as illegal for me to walk up and shoot a terrorist in broad daylight as it is for me to do the same to a child. This argument is based more in philosophy than in enforcement. Obviously, I am not arguing that there should be a penalty for committing suicide, but rather that it is wrong to do so. It is therefore wrong to help someone do so.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

I acknowledge the ethical dilemmas presented in legalizing assisted suicide however I have another idea in mind. I think that, to remove all legal liabilities, a doctor and patient should be mandated to sign a contract agreeing that this is what they both feel is correct. The patient, or person if you rather, then should have a full psychological work up done to make sure they are not mentally ill. Following that they should have another qualified physician/high up personal if you will make sure that it is in fact a final resort. This should therefore bypass the doctors' ethical obligations and also free the hospital/doctor from any future legal problems. Secondly I completely agree with your second argument. In many cases it is just a simple mental illness that causes people to kill themselves however I believe my first point (above) would also take care of that. By mandating that patients have a psychological work up, one: that may scare some "posers" so to speak, out of going through all trouble to die and two: people who end up being deemed with whatever mental illness can get the proper help they need. Just to clarify though I do not believe just any person should be allowed to kill themselves with the aid of a doctor. I'm more referring to patients terminally ill that doctors say will be dead in a couple months or so. Lastly, you mentioned Augustine raised the point that she "had therefore killed an innocent woman." His accusations however were based off of the public opinion of her being innocent and not a judicial stand point or even her own. And if in fact we looked at suicide as murder then how would we prosecute the "offender"? In the case the murderer and the victim are one in the same so does it really matter? And for all we know she, or any person who has committed suicide, might not be so innocent. Just because the woman raped, as you mentioned, couldn't deal with the shame and thus killed herself; how do we know she was really that innocent? Perhaps she committed a crime earlier in life or wasn't an upstanding person at all. It's hard to tell who is innocent and not when the only person who knows all that they have done in life is the person that is dead. I then believe that, with the right regulations, assisted suicide should be legalized.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

Good luck to you as well. Assisted suicide is an extremely delicate issue. On one side, there is the argument that my opponent has put forward, saying that a person should be allowed to choose when they die, in other words, that it is an issue of freedom. However, I propose that it is instead an issue of curing those who suffer, rather than simply allowing them to kill themselves. This belief is based on three concepts. First is the concept that one of the rules a physician should follow is "Primum non nocere" (First, not to harm). (http://en.wikipedia.org...). A doctor is morally and ethically obligated to do his best to help his patient, even if it goes against the patient's wishes. By intentionally giving a person (patient is not really the correct term when the doctor is helping them kill themselves) drugs for the sole purpose of ending that person's life is a violation of the doctor's integrity. Second, suicide is a symptom of mental illness. Over 90% of those who commit suicide have a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of death (World Psychiatric Association http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...). The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct. These people need help to fight their problems, not help to kill themselves. If it was legal for a physician to help people commit suicide, people who were contemplating it would be more likely to follow through, since the drugs would be quick and painless, as opposed to other methods a person might use. Finally, suicide has many inherent ethical issues. Augustine pointed out in The City of God (I believe, I can't find my copy of it, so it may be in Confessions) that when someone kills themselves, they are committing murder. Specifically, he refers to a woman idolized in Roman tradition who had been raped, then committed suicide because she couldn't live with the shame. Everyone referred to her as innocent. However, Augustine raised the point that she had therefore killed an innocent woman. Intentionally killing an innocent person is, by definition, murder. Therefore, suicide is not a freedom, but rather a crime or a symptom of illness. As such, it is a doctor's duty to prevent suicide, rather than assisting it. If anything, we should strengthen the penalties for physician assisted suicide, rather than removing them.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

First off I just want to clarify what assisted suicide means for my opponent. "Assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the means of ending his or her life—usually a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. The patient takes the drugs independently of the doctor. This procedure differs from euthanasia, in which the doctor administers the fatal dose or performs some other act, such as a lethal injection, that ends the patient's life." (1) That being said it is also illegal in every state within the U.S. besides Oregon and Washington. (2) I propose a change to this and make it legal in every state. Who are we to say a patient must suffer until his final breath is taken? We can condemn a man to a death sentence but we will not let him chose his own? If in fact the principals this country was founded on are still upheld today (which, in some perspectives it doesn't seem to be so) then we should have the free will to chose when enough is enough. Don't get me wrong I believe there should be some requirements put on it however I will go into farther detail once my opponent has a chance to make his argument. I wish good luck to us both. (1) http://socialissues.wiseto.com... (2) http://www.lifesitenews.com...
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained

Im sorry If my argument seem a bit too sensational. I often get into fights with people over me wanting to protect life. But when most people and in the end thats what its all about the way people view the flag, they dont see this http://image48.webshots.com... they see http://en.wikipedia.org.... "If you insist calling the Confederacy, Jefferson Davies, Robert Lee, Judah Benjamin and their flag "things that stand for evil" than I suggest you say the same things about the USA, George Washington, James Madison as well." Washington was the only prominent, slaveholding Founding Father who succeeded at emancipating his slaves. He did not free his slaves in his lifetime, however, but instead included a provision in his will to free his slaves upon the death of his wife. As for Madison I aint saying all americans had a clean plate. I am however saying that the slavery ended in the united states because of the north not the confederacy. yes the south secceded from the union for multiple reasons one of them slavery another apperant misrepresentation. Bleeding Kansas and The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after. So I would say slavery was the main issue. I just wish the south would find a new way to show its pride.
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained

The Confederacy went to war for the sole reason of "keeping people oppressed?". You really need to relearn your history properly, for obvious you have never studied the American Civil War. There were a variety of reasons involved, the most prominently of the role of the federal government. Many Southern States felt that their political muscle was no longer sufficient to represent their values in Washington and devised a plan to remedy the divided union by dissolving it. The more conservative approach to slavery certainly played a role in it, but keep in mind patriotism and different interpretations' of the constitution were the primary causes, though ignored by American propagandists, who as winners, wrote history. The South did not "go to war", they were eager to sign a peace treaty, so long as they retained their independence, it was diehard federalists who pressed the war and refused to vacate foreign soil. Even if you cannot see past the slavery issue, and believe the North was justified in their crusade against the horrid Southern slave-holding animals and their flag (which represented their cause). In that case why do not abhor the AMERICAN flag as well? For keep in mind when the Revolutionary War broke out, King George, like Lincoln four-score and twenty year later, felt it best to spread discontent behind enemy lines and gain allies by declaring all slaves in enemy territory were to be free. Even after their defeat, binding the Negroes of America many more years of slavery, the British command ignored the protests of Washington and refused to return any human "property" in New York over the Rebels who claimed the slaves as their own, instead they were freed and fled to other corners of the Empire. On Friday your country will celebrate this victory, because there were other issues at stake other than slavery worth celebrating about. Likewise, had the South split off they would be also celebrating, even in a post-slavery society. If you insist calling the Confederacy, Jefferson Davies, Robert Lee, Judah Benjamin and their flag "things that stand for evil" than I suggest you say the same things about the USA, George Washington, James Madison as well. Both Davies and Washington stood for national independence, for democratic systems for whites, and for slavery. You cannot honestly pay homage to one and abhor the other. Likewise with the flags they fought under. As for the argument that the symbol in question is employed by some certain hate groups, what is your point? The Cross was used by Crusaders, oppressive feudal regimes, and a variety of other nasty people as an icon but to this day it still seen as a traditional symbol of Christianity. Likewise with many other symbols. Symbols mean nothing by themselves, they merely take on the guise of the people who employ them, and most are used for purposes good, evil, and mundane
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained

Why would someone condemn those countries since most of the countries that had slaves slowly abolished it peacefully. The Confederacy went to war to keep people oppressed. Even though this argument is not about Nazi Germany id like to point out that like the confederate flag the Nazi flag was the flag adopted by a country after a revolution in public opinion in favor of the Confederacy/Nazi Germany. that's why I brought up the Nazi flag. That and the fact that both regimes stood for something evil. The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive, it stands for the confederacy it has only recently begun to stand for southern pride. their are other ways to express your proudness for the south. The plain matter is that Some hate groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including racists, separatists, Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained

The Confederate Flag, a symbol of racism? Why would you say this? True the country which it represents was rtaher strong in adocating for slvaery and apartheid, but so was the United States. Keep in mind it was not Lincoln, but King George III who was the first to declare all slaves in America to be free, and had his armies succeded the practice would have ended in that corner of the empire far sooner. Comparing the Confederacy to the Nazis of course is highly unwarranted. Wheras the Nazi flag was designed to pander to a specific, forbidden ideaology, the Confederate was not, but rather was derived as symbol of their new nation and of their independeance from American rule, which was abhorred by its citizenry. Mnay other nations of the time had apartheid and slavery, the United States (in Maryland, Missouri) included as well as Brazil and Russia. If you were to condemn all countries from ancient time periods such as this for violating human rights' standards I'm afraid there wouldn't be that mnay accpetable flags or relics left from this era. P
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained

Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism, both for the history of racial slavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws by Southern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcing racial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement. Much like the Swastika is illegal in Germany now. "The German (and Austrian) postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the swastika and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons." - Wikipedia the confederate flag should also be barred from use and maybe as a suggestion the united states flag or a new southern pride flag be adopted.
Males are superior to females

Unfortunately, I will not be capable of accessing my computer before the clock wineds down, so I am posting this from my phone, forcing me to keep it short. I will condense my three sections into one conclusion. CONCLUSION On the argument over reproduction, Pro simply restates his previous assertion and does not disprove my counter-argument. That's the equivalent of making "you're wrong" an argument. Pro does the same thing later in the argument over height and intelligence. I explained why controlling for height in IQ tests is a valuable tool for evaluating cognitive differences between genders and Pro gave no clear argument for how I could be wrong. In the argument over health, Pro concedes that women live much longer than men and yet in the same breath claims they are less healthy than men, citing that they are more likely to have certain illnesses than men, which I had previously shown the opposite of. Nevermind the fact that the illnesses I showed are for more widespread and fatal than Pro's. This is basically saying " X type of car has better durability than Y type of car because, even though it breaks down sooner, it's more durable when it's working...in some ways and not in other ways". In the argument over grades and intelligence, Pro reasserts that grades are not indicative of intelligence and this time posts a source, as I asked. The source he gives is frankly bull. The source is a very short opinion article which cites absolutely zero material evidence for the claim. On the issue of single mothers being more likely to inflict child abuse than single fathers, the point is null until it can be shown that single mothers would do this because they are female. Just as in the IQ issue, it is subject to variables that have not been adjusted. Single mothers are more likely to be poor than single fathers due to continued discrimination in employers. Poorer homes are more likely to have child abuse. There are many other factors that could be the cause as well. The point is that nothing can be concluded from the correlation alone. I gave actual psychological reasons that men are obsevered to be so much more aggressive than women, unlike Pro for otherwise. This concludes the debate. Pro has given a good shot for a first debate. I encourage him to work on appropriate sourcing. I encourge voters to vote based on the debating efficiency displayed here, not on personal opinion and to not vote at all if they have not properly read the debate.
Males are superior to females

There are essentially three aspects to what makes us human. Our physical bodies, or the physical attribute, our minds, or the mental attribute, and our emotions, or the emotional attribute. The physical attribute is a given. The fact that most, if not all, athletic records are held by males proves that males are just built to be stronger and faster. Look at (http://records.unitarium.com...) if you need additional proof. The mental attribute is also pretty simple. Men have higher IQs on average (http://www.psychologytoday.com...). Please read past the first line, which says "They aren't." IQ, which measures potential to learn by testing for problem-solving abilities, attention retention, multi-tasking capabilities, and pattern-finding capacity, among others, is directly correlated to one's intelligence. If that isn't enough, philosophy, mathematics, science, medicine and all of the important building blocks of modern society were created by men. If you are still unconvinced, look at inventions. The computer you're using, the electricity running through your house, the car you drive, the cellphone in your pocket, the desk you sit at, the pencil you write with and even the paper you write on were invented by men. Comparing the contributions that men made to those that women made reveals that women have made almost no significant contributions in the history of man. Finally, the emotional attribute, which will be defined as being in a healthy state of mind. This is a much harder point to debate, so please bare with me. Mental health is defined as one's abilities to enjoy life, persevere through problems and cope with stress. For starters, women have twice the chance of getting depression (http://www.nytimes.com...) which obviously hinders one's ability to enjoy life. Women also seem to be less willing to persevere through problems as 75% of divorces are initiated by women (http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com...). Also, coping with the stress of a divorce seems to be too much to handle. Not only are single-woman-parents 2.5 times as likely to abuse or kill their children (same source as last time), but also are more likely to rely completely on child support (46.9% vs. 26.9%) and less likely to pay support to a custodial father (20.0% vs. 61.0%) (http://www.mens-rights.net...). Finally, to wrap it all up, I will point out that psychological problems often create three common health problems: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression, all of which are higher in females than males (http://www.apa.org...). In conclusion, since males are physically, mentally, and emotionally superior, they are superior.
Kids should wear uniforms

What is so good about teaching the children that they are going to be judged and made fun when they grow up at such an early age? What exactly do you mean by We should hide them from the harsh reality. I have already mentioned that being judged on is a harsher reality than wearing the same uniform thinking that they have to act/dress the same. submissive to stupid rulesSo are you saying that wearing school uniform is stupid? Then, why do schools force their students to wear uniforms. I have never mentioned that it will be easy. I have especially bolded the word reduce. Wearing school uniforms can reduce the chances from that happening rather than making it easy. No matter the outcome, it was great debating with you. Thank you.