BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized

ok katie u wanna be that way fine bring it!!! if they have six monthes to live they should live it to the fullest. go do things they never could. as for the pain thats what medication is for! even if the docter is willing to do it. the after math is still equal. they could regrett it knowing that that person could have lived longer. would you like to go the rest of ur life thinking that you could have kept them longer. i dont know about you but i would hate to have that on my conchince. thankyou for your time and your thoughts.
Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized

If a person is terminally ill and they only have 6 months to live, would you make them suffer through the pain for that whole time or with their wish would you allow them the right to end that pain? God may be in charge of all life, but what if that person knows it's their time to die? Also, say a family member is terminally ill and your really close to them. Why in the world would you want to see them in that horrible, horrific state of pain for however long they have to live? If that person wishes to end their life, shouldn't you grant them that wish, being that their in an unbearable state of pain? Thirdly, the doctors do not have to agree to assisted euthanasia of any one person. If the doctor is willing to do it, then the pain after the person is gone should not be that big. If doctors are not forced to do it then the willing ones should be ok with it
Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized

Euthanasia. when you hear that word what do you think??? do you think an easy way out of a hard situation. yeah sure i do. do you think dieing with dignity i say NO! When you put your life in the hands of another person you giving up alot. But when you ask the person who has your life in their hands to put an end to your life than you need to take a long hard look at your self respect! If you choose to put an end to your life with some docter puting some chemical in an IV than you need a reality check. Euthanasia is wrong for three reasons/ First reason: your askeing someone to PLAY GOD! how would you feel if yoiu where a docter and someone asks you to kill them now?? how do you respond to asomething so crazy such as that! second reason: your family would be angry and hurt. your leaving behind memeorys and friends and family. how would they feel knowing that you could have lived for five more years! But mom decided to go early becuase she was scared. third reason: once your gone your doc still here. say he does go throo with it what happens then? your docter than has to go through the pain of knowing he helped someone die. when he knew they could have lived alot longer therefor im am aginst the statement:Euthanasia should be legalized
Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized

When the doctor enters, your heart skips a beat. You know that there's no hope, that eventually death will come your way. But you also know that the fight to get there will be unbearably painful. You then realize that you will be cared for 24 hours, 7 days a week. You won't be able to go to the bathroom without help, you'll have to be forced fed. Your family is suffering from the truth and the unability to know just when the death will come. Euthanasia is physician assited suicide, and death with dignity. For so many reasons Euthanasia should be legalized, dignity, to end the pain, and so many more. Therefore I am for the above resolution, Euthanasia should be legalized.
Every ill society suffers from is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will.

I asked you for behavior, that is harmful to society, that is not against Gods Word. Yes, I was asked for human behavior that produces ill that is not disobedience to God. You have failed to do so. Ummm, I showed like 10 examples of behavior that was obedience to God's will that produced ill. Therefore it cannot be disobedience. I did not fail to do that. Because you can't. Trolling. Your example about mistakes in the workplace doesn't qualify, either. Mistakes happen. People do not intentionally make mistakes. They are beyond one's control. You asked for human behavior that produced ill and was not against God's will. Mistakes in the workplace is human behavior and you never tried to refute my argument that it is not against God's will. The fact that it is not intentional does not mean that it is not human behavior which you asked for. You have failed to follow the rules of this debate, by not giving me what I asked for. I followed the rules to the letter. It is you who decided to redefine them in this round to try to avoid one of my counter-examples. Therefor, you have forfeited. Nope, you did by posting no arguments. I ask everyone to vote accordingly. Thank you. I think they are all going to vote for me, no offense. Well, thanks for inspiring me to do new testament research. I had no idea how radical it was on borrowing and celibacy.
Every ill society suffers from is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will.

I repeat. I asked you for behavior, that is harmful to society, that is not against Gods Word. You have failed to do so. Because you can't. Your example about mistakes in the workplace doesn't qualify, either. Mistakes happen. People do not intentionally make mistakes. They are beyond one's control. You have failed to follow the rules of this debate, by not giving me what I asked for. Therefor, you have forfeited. I ask everyone to vote accordingly. Thank you.
Every ill society suffers from is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will.

I specifically asked my opponent for examples of human behavior that causes societal ills, that are not opposed to Gods will. He has not done so. Instead, he has turned the tables and provided examples, and poor ones at that, of how OBEYING Gods will actually causes societal ills. I can refute every one of them, but I'm not going to. That is not what this debate is about. Since my opponent has ignored me and decided to change what this debate is actually about, I'm declaring that he has forfeited the debate. You should vote accordingly. Thank you.
Every ill society suffers from is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will.

I'd like to remind everyone that this debate is about personal behavior, how it negatively affects society and how said behavior is in direct opposition to Gods Word. wrath, avarice, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. The seven deadly sins. Why are they called that? I've often wondered, so I looked it up. Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self where the subjective rules over the objective. It is believed that these sins destroy the life of grace and charity within a person. A person without charity is a person who does not know God. Here are some other things that the Lord hates. A proud look A lying tongue Hands that shed innocent blood A heart that devises wicked plots Feet that are swift to run into mischief A deceitful witness that uttereth lies Him that soweth discord among brethren These are just a sample of things that are against Gods will. Con must provide an example of human behavior, that is destructive to society, that is not caused by disobedience to the Word of God. I guess I'll pause here, and see what con can come up with. Please don't disappoint me. I want a good debate. P. S. I know I haven't really given my opponent anything to rebutt, so he can rebutt my rebuttals, I guess.
Every ill society suffers from is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will.

It is my belief that every societal ill we suffer from, is a direct result of disobedience to Gods will. Con must come up with one societal ill that is not a result of doing something that the Bible says NOT to do. For this debate, we will not be discussing natural disasters or disease, as these are something that we cannot control. This debate is solely about behavior and how it affects us as a society. Four rounds. Usual format. Acceptance, opening arguments, rebuttals, closing arguments.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that: Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U. S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, "it has nothing to do with tenures. "C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions.2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals.3. Drops all arguments in round 44. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's:Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. "What administrators want" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that ""The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. " In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals:CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that "they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers "unfirable", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole:1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments.2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic.3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted.The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students.CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com...CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, "The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers."1)http://www.dukechronicle.com...R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment.1)http://www.joebaugher.com...R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking?1)http://blog.timesunion.com...The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments:R1: The fallicious logic connects being "arbitrarily fired" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated- Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachersR2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away "great teachers. " He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not "arbitrarily fired" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following:CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. . http://tinyurl.com... [2]CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. . http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted.
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: "It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality."(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
Should Tenures Be Taken Away

I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:1. Tenure PossibilitiesTenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include: - New people with new techniques for students- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach- People with new knowledge of a particular subjectBy barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques. 2. Economic View From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living - Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while givingolder people the majority of money -- an imbalance3. Abuse of Teaching PositionsThrough allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as: - Those with corrupted moral standards- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity- Teachers not conductive to learning environmentNote that this "corruption" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...
Those who take knowledge of history will repeat it.

Although this may be true in some cases, most people do not fantasize about recreating lost cultures. If we look throughout American History, we can find several examples which can disprove your theory. One can not simply learn the mistakes of history without learning all of history. Everything must be taken in context. If we understood why Hitler came to power but not what we did to cause those circumstances, how much do we really know? Taking anything out of context allows room for misinterpretation and that is where mistakes are made. In conclusion, unless you learn all of history you can NOT accurately learn from the mistakes, and even among the very few who wish to emulate historical cultures, even fewer have the means to bring their fantasies to fruition.
Those who take knowledge of history will repeat it.

Those who take knowledge of history and are fantasized by it will take actions to emulate dead cultures and lost pride. History itself imposes a threat on the present by idealizing the past and thus giving people self-realization of what they are capable of doing. Retrospective view of History will give those a brief lesson of mistakes that lead to the downfall of that culture. Indeed, those who ignore history is doomed to repeat it, but these individuals will have to be fantasized by self-realization to be able to recreate something out of a event of the forgotten past. We could say this better,: "Those who ignore history is doomed to repeat the mistakes." To create a never dying culture unlike the exemplar that individual dreams of emulating, he will have to look to the past in order to spot the contradictions that lead to it's destruction.
is ethan sayer fat

I'd like to take this time to point out, though, that Pro has not made an argument As Pro, he is defending in this case a positive statement. However, he has provided no evidence -- not a single image, or a characterization of who this "Ethan Sayer" fellow is, or any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, he has failed to uphold his burden of proof and cannot possibly win on arguments. Next, we need to bear in mind that adjectives are relative. He says that this fellow is extremely fat. Even if we accept him on his word, I must ask: fat relative to whom? He has no made this clear. Then he claims that this man spends "every second of his life eating peanut butter. " First, you can't conceivably spend every second of your life eating peanut butter because that would imply that every single you are pereptually chewing and shallowing peanut butter. But when you swallow, you cannot at the same time breath [1. . http://www.omgfacts.com...]. So if this were the case, he would be dead. You said that he "is" extremely fat, which suggests the present tense, which suggests that he is alive. So not even the argument you have provided can be seen as the least bit valid. Pro has not upheld his burden of proof, nor has he made a single coherent argument.
Chuck Norris Jokes

There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris, but it was changed because nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives. Chuck Norris has a grizzly bear carpet in his room. The bear isn't dead it is just afriad to move. Chuck Norris and Superman once fought each other on a bet. The loser had to start wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants. Thank you and gooooooooood night!
We should eat Asians as food

First of all, if we do limit the amount of children that Asian's can have, that won't do any significant change in it's population, which is still more than half of the world. To resume: ...land for other ideas, such as a World Dump, or a global theme park, the ideas are endless, and it will help everyone, including the world itself! (limited resources, global warming etc.) And for my second point, Invasion. Have you ever dreamed of a world run by Asians? Not a pretty site, now is it. +VOTE
We should eat Asians as food

I will have two reasons: Overpopulation Invasion? First, let me state the population of Asians, which is currently 3,879,000,000 people, and counting, with over 200 newcomers each day and only 10 dead. At this rate, the world shall be overrun by Asians. There are too many of them, and i believe they should be eaten, bit all, but all who were born after the year of 2000. Not only will hunger decline and economies boost right through the roof, the other nations can use the unpopulated land