BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

REBUTTALS R1 Suffering Suffering is meaningless if one is at the end of their life, and their disease makes it impossible to continue their life before a severe bought of disease. A person cannot grow if their life is ending or they are confined to living the rest of their life under the pain of their disease. Thus, it is better to have them have the option to end their life in order to end their suffering, thus voluntary euthanasia is morally justified. R2. Consent It is enough to justify one's own elimination, because one should decide their fate, one should have the freedom to do so. If one wants to end their suffering, they should have the right to do so, especially if the suffering is meaningless. R3. Intent While having a good intent does not make something moral, it does make something more moral if it has ill intent. Conclusion: In conclusion, I have uphled the moral triangle, and thus voluntary euthanasia is morally justified.
imabench is an ignorant fvuck tard

Pro completely fails to argue why I am an ignorant fucktard and instead uses his own retarded opinion as fact, like he always does in his debates (No wonder why he has a win percentage of < 30%)I also never talked about seaman in Kim Kardashians mouth, I only talked about SEMEN in Kim Kardashians mouth... They are two completely different things, even though Kim Kardashian probably has at one point had several seaman in her mouth as well.... Also, saying that the Bible is a BS source for a physics debate doesnt make me ignorant, in fact the 57-0 score of that debate in my favor against Anti-Atheist only proves that I was right and that hes the real dumba** around here (http://www.debate.org...)Pro has completely failed in his arguments (again), so I ask voters to please proceed on votebombing the f*ck out of this debate against Anti-Atheist for making such a retarded debate in the first place. The more points you give me will serve as a statement for how stupid you think the Pro is. 1 point in my favor being "Anti-Atheist is a reasonably intelligent person" and 5, 6, or 7 points being "Anti-Atheist is a complete dumba** who makes Forrest Gump look like Steven Hawkings"Thanks for voting :D Also, this weeks weekly Stupid episode that got Anti-Atheist's panties in such a twist in the first place in case you wanted to know why this debate even happened:http://www.debate.org...
imabench is an ignorant fvuck tard

Ima, ima, ima. I said why youre a fucktard. You pretends to be a christian but talks about seaman in kim kardasahns mouth. Also you said the bible was BS in our physics debate. You also use the wrong "your" in round 1 you said "youre move idiot ;D" It should be "your" I win u lose. Your show the weekly stupid is stupid!
imabench is an ignorant fvuck tard

Thankyou for proving that the login is valid meaning that my results from the IQ test are legitimate. It doesnt help out your argument though because the test is valid and the 149 score still stands, which is more then enough to prove that im not an ignorant fucktard and that your obsession with me is borderline creepy. Im still waiting for your argument about why I am one, all youve done is find someone elses results for the same test, blocked out the only thing that could be used to validate it, and passed it off as your own.... Not the first time though that youve used retarded arguments to try to prove a point.... "If God exists, then God exists. God does exist, therefore God exists. Where is the logic wrong" - Anti-Atheist, currently leading as the stupidest statement on the Weekly Stupid ;D
imabench is an ignorant fvuck tard

Cute. You blotted out the email address and login password so it cant be verified if its legit or not.... The name at the top is also 'Alex' not 'Anti-Atheist' so its mote then likely you got this from someone else or just took it off the internet. Meanwhile according to the site itself: http://iqtest.com... My legit score more then shows that im not an ignorant fucktard (you spelled it wrong btw), so youre argument (which you have yet to present at all actually) is already defeated :)
Homosexuality is natural and morally correct. Homophobia is morallly incorrect.

Sorry about the short length here, I just wanted to finish this off quickly before I went to sleep. As my final round, I will simply be stressing one very important point. Homosexuality is not a choice. This was first stated by my opponenet, and I agreed. Something cannot be morally right or wrong if it is not a matter of choice. I made this point, and my opponenet did not disagree. His response was that: "The act of engaging in homosexual love is moral, which is the choice." So while homosexuality is not a choice, coimmiting homosexual acts is not a choice. HOWEVER, this debate is about whether or not HOMOSEXUALITY is morally right or not, not about whether commiting HOMOSEXUAL ACTS is morally right or wrong. Since Homosexuality is not a choice, it itself is not morally correct or incorrect. It is, as I have stated many times before, morally neutral. Thus, I negate the resolution, since Homosexuality is not morally correct.
There is evidence for Noah's flood narrative

My position is that there is currently no evidence for the flood narrative as described in the Bible. There are elements of the story which might be based on real life events for example floods, people in boats, etc. However, we have to be careful to not jump to conclusions and assume that the story itself is true because there was a flood. Pro brings evidence of two kinds. 1. Ron Wyatt and the Durupınar site. 2. Writings about the ark. The Ron Wyatt account has been analyzed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars [1] and they have concluded that his claims and have concluded that the site is simply a geological formation. In 1985 David Fasold went to the site with geophysics John Baumgardner they were at first excited that the site might be the ark. They conducted more expeditions to the site later in the 90s. They then started to change their mind and conclude that the site is not a petrified boat, but simply a natural formation[2]. Fasold wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins about the site and how it is not the ark. [3] The title of their research paper is "Bogus "Noah's" Ark from Turkey exposed as a common geological structure". Ron Wyatt used something called a "Molecular Frequency Generator" which is essentially a dowsing rod, to conclude that the ark was below ground.[4] Fasold tried to replicate Wyatt's results and this is what he wrote: "...A great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in 1986 by Wyatt and Fasold. . . .After numerous attempts over a period of one and a half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way. . . I was never convinced the site was the remains of Noah's Ark. In fact the more time I spent on the site, the more skeptical I became." The second part of Pro's strategy is to present as much writing as possible from ancient times about the ark. However, these texts alone are not evidence of the ark. They are not first hand accounts of what happened. The texts he references are written by people living thousands of years after the estimated time Noah lived. They tell accounts of people claiming to have seen the ark, or claiming that a certain site is where the ark has landed. This is not evidence of the story, these are just rumors of the ark being there. If the Wyatt account is not valid, and there have been other claims about the ark being found [5]. We cannot assume that the accounts of ancient writers are solid evidence that the story of the ark happened as described in the bible. [1] http://www.snopes.com... [2] http://www.boatsalvage.com.au... [3] http://scholarworks.csun.edu... [4] http://www.andrews.edu... [5] http://www.foxnews.com...
There is evidence for Noah's flood narrative

Con claims that the device used by Ron is a dosing rod, however Scientific principles were applied to the molecular frequency generator. According to the product review, the Dell systems Geo surveyor uses the concept of harmonic induction to find metals and minerals. It was designed by electronic engineer Vernon Rose. It is very accurate. It uses a magna wave to give more precise readings through antenna. It was designed to utilize soil and/or water to receive wavelengths to up to 1/2 miles. The signals are received through an analyzer which rejects some frequencies and accepts those desired by the user. The Geo-surveyor comes factory programmed to identify or locate silver or gold, but can find 58 other elements. Two small ground probes were used to conduct a survey. A color-coded transmitter with negative plugs on the face of it. The 2 position switch on the transmitter lets the user set it to search for gold or silver and other elements have been custom programmed. The antennas have a plug connected to the magna wave receiver. Power comes from the 9-volt battery. A battery test on the top of the receiver. The transmitter is powered by 4 C batteries that may be replaced by removing the plastic panel cover on the rear of the transmitter. The user holds the rods which indicate the signal received by the belt mount receiver. The antenna align themselves with the signal. When a target has been found, the operator can adjust it with a rotating anomaly qualified knob mounted on the transmitter face. As we can see, this device applies Scientific principles. According to the review site below, contact info. has been given in case anyone wants to learn more about the Molecular frequency generator from the company itself. Furthermore, the metal detectors used confirm the presence of a man-made structure underground. John Baumgardner was present when this happened. We cannot trust John Baumgardner simply because he reached the conclusion that it wasn't the Ark without any solid explanation on his part. He either denies it or hasn't seen the evidence being presented above and in the sources. Baumgardner claims these "ribs" are apart of a natural formation, however this couldn't have been natural for the following reasons. Water flowing from the mountain would create a horizontal mark on the Ark, not vertical by erosion. Secondly, the mudslide more openly revealed the sides of the Ark. Rivets found at the sides of the Ark matching the outer plane of the ribs is evidence that these are ribs. Ultimately, Ron Wyatt hid nothing, he captured videos and pictures of the Ark, plus allowed the site to be open to further Scientific investigation. There is more evidence given to support that Noah's flood narrative is scientifically, historically, and archaeologically accurate than Con claims. Links: http://www.arkdiscovery.com... http://www.arkdiscovery.com...
There is evidence for Noah's flood narrative

The sites that i used do give references contrary to what con claimed, the writer tells you where to find the information. Even if you are not convinced that Molecular frequency generators found metal underground at the site, David fasold himself used a metal detector in his video "Field studies" which can be found on youtube. Thus we still have evidence that a man-made structure was found. This was taken from a newsletter entitled "A search for the Elusive ark" by Dr. John Baumgardner: "...Between July 28th and August 7th we succeeded, praise God, in drilling four holes to a depth of ten meters and recovered reasonably good cores from each of the holes. Three of the holes were near the centerline of the site while the fourth was near the outer flank of the longitudinal hump.... Another notable discovery was the presence at three locations in the mudflow layer of nodules of the bright yellow mineral limonite. Limonite is the hydrated oxide of iron, and its occurrence in the environment appears to be anomalous. Just how anomalous is the crucial question, since the minerals in the rocks in the source area of the mudflow have a moderate iron content. However, during the months now that I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest because they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects. A final observation concerning the core samples was the absence -- apart from the limonite nodules -- of possible evidence for man-made structure. There was, for example, no evidence for wood, petrified or otherwise. However, core drilling is severely limited in its ability to find buried archaeological structure, especially if it is sparsely distributed and has been significantly altered by decay and chemical weathering." Con shifts the focus from the evidence presented in round 1 and in the refutations, ignoring the sources which say that David Fasold changed his views on the Ark to what i did or did not present.
Vacations

What are you waiting for visit Costa Rica? Sweet Home Costa Rica provides all the services you need to experience the greatest vacation and to make the most of your investment or second home while visiting Costa Rica. We offer high performance Property Management, Fun Tours, High standard Real Estate, Beautiful and comfortable Rentals: Condominiums and Luxury Homes, In-house massages, Chefs, Stock groceries, Transfers, Concierge services, Golf cart and car rentals, Maintenance. . . Just name it, We have it all. We just want to make it "Sweet Home" for You. Visit us --> https://sweethomecr. Com/
draxxt is a homosexual and wants me to give him AIDS

(To take a page from Logical_Master, this music would begin playing as I deliver my refutations . http://youtube.com... " "First off, I have never addressed "worthiness and nobility". So we can discount this falsehood. Also, I'd like to point out that there is no purpose of helping to cure AIDS. My opponent assumes to be logical, and therefore if he has he must realize that there is no personal benefit to giving yourself aids, and he must also realize that there is no objective morality. What benefit is there of curing AIDS to yourself if you must contract the disease and endure hardships? It is much more likely that you will die via AIDS than cure the disease, so you can see that the only personal benefit is some sense of smugness, but living is a much greater benefit than being smug. Objective morality cannot possibly exist, so my opponents statements of worthiness and nobility can clearly be discounted. So the only way my opponent can agree with the above statement is if he claims to be illogical, in which case you must default con because my opponent is an illogical being. " My opponent says that I claim worthiness and nobility are the prime factors in my argument of AIDS. That is not true. I simply made an observation that certain people and, indeed, myself might consider it as such. That being said, I have always said morality is subjective. The resolution states ". .. and wants me to give him AIDS" My opponent gives no alternative so I assume the most logical choice: ". .. and wants me to give him AIDS" under certain binding circumstances. That being said, I would want to recieve AIDS (Preferably in the act of blood transfusion) If that were the only option which, under the resolution, it is. "Homosexual and heterosexual, by my definition OR his are still mutually exclusive terms. By my definition heterosexual means loving a different sex than yourself, whereas homosexual means loving the same sex as yourself. If we are to use his definition of homosexual it means unwaveringly loving the same sex, so heterosexual means that you love different sexes. " My opponent has overlooked the fact that, as is with morality, our definitions of homosexual are subjective and he has not proved to anyone how the word cannot be taken under a different context, though he has claimed that the context is everything in this debate. I perceived the context under which the word homosexual means loving the same sex each time or being attracted to the same sex each time. I have also declared that I am "homosexual" for women. The statement my opponent refers to is simply another context. I take the dictionary context of heterosexual for this debate. I take a personal context for the word homosexual. Thank you and any logical judge will vote Pro. Thanks again and good debate, -EG
draxxt is a homosexual and wants me to give him AIDS

I wrote out a really long semantics argument, but then I realized something, I don't need to type that. I do however need to address the AIDS argument. "Also, if my opponent were to give me AIDS, I would be able to give myself up for the research to cure AIDS. I would endure tests and hardships all in the name of curing it for future generations. This would be a worthy and noble cause and would better mankind, something my opponent has talked highly of. " First off, I have never addressed "worthiness and nobility". So we can discount this falsehood. Also, I'd like to point out that there is no purpose of helping to cure AIDS. My opponent assumes to be logical, and therefore if he has he must realize that there is no personal benefit to giving yourself aids, and he must also realize that there is no objective morality. What benefit is there of curing AIDS to yourself if you must contract the disease and endure hardships? It is much more likely that you will die via AIDS than cure the disease, so you can see that the only personal benefit is some sense of smugness, but living is a much greater benefit than being smug. Objective morality cannot possibly exist, so my opponents statements of worthiness and nobility can clearly be discounted. So the only way my opponent can agree with the above statement is if he claims to be illogical, in which case you must default con because my opponent is an illogical being. So to address the homosexual / heterosexual argument: Homosexual and heterosexual, by my definition OR his are still mutually exclusive terms. By my definition heterosexual means loving a different sex than yourself, whereas homosexual means loving the same sex as yourself. If we are to use his definition of homosexual it means unwaveringly loving the same sex, so heterosexual means that you love different sexes. My opponent has conceded this entire round with the statement: "Now, as you know, my debate. org page says I am heterosexual. This is true. " As I have shown, homosexual and heterosexual are mutually exclusive terms, regardless of the semantics behind them. Because of this, my opponent agrees to being heterosexual - removing the possibility of being homosexual. If you've got any grain of logical fibre within your brain, the winner of this debate is clear.
draxxt is a homosexual and wants me to give him AIDS

First of all: "Roots: "Homo" means same, however with some small, preliminary searching I have not found a definition for the root "sexual", so i'll contest this point and I'd like you to give me a source, but I'll continue with the "Same gender" anyways. Same gender does not imply "having sex with the same gender every time", because then heterosexual (different gender) would imply that you sleep with a different gender, so it would rotate from guy to girl, however having sex with a guy then switching to girl doesn't mean you can go back to guy. That would violate "different gender". So you'd only have sex twice. Instead it means, "You have sex with a DIFFERENT gender" (heterosexual). So, homosexual means, by the root words, "You have sex with the SAME gender". " . .. Every time. "You have sex with the same gender (Every time)" I will define the word "same" for the sake of my semantics argument. Merriam Webster defines same as "being one without addition, change, or discontinuance" There is no discontinuance in my attraction to women. "Contextually, as you can see by what I've presented above and will continue to present, 'homosexual' means "attracted to the same gender sexually". " . .. . .. Every time. "Literal Definition(. http://dictionary.reference.com......): "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. " Is it not clear that I am arguing that by homosexual, I AM loving the same sex. Not in the sense that I love the same sex as is identical to me but in the sense that there is consistancy. I must also mention that my opponent has dropped his entire defense against my AIDS case, so, for the time being, he has dropped it. For the reasons above, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG
draxxt is a homosexual and wants me to give him AIDS

My opponents entire argument is based around redefining a word, however this is flimsy and weak, at best. A definition from a word does not come solely from an interpretation of the roots, it also comes from the context the word is used, and the literal definition of the word. So let's break down the definition into these three categories. .. Roots: "Homo" means same, however with some small, preliminary searching I have not found a definition for the root "sexual", so i'll contest this point and I'd like you to give me a source, but I'll continue with the "Same gender" anyways. Same gender does not imply "having sex with the same gender every time", because then heterosexual (different gender) would imply that you sleep with a different gender, so it would rotate from guy to girl, however having sex with a guy then switching to girl doesn't mean you can go back to guy. That would violate "different gender". So you'd only have sex twice. Instead it means, "You have sex with a DIFFERENT gender" (heterosexual). So, homosexual means, by the root words, "You have sex with the SAME gender". Context: It means to be attracted, sexually, to the same gender as yourself. Contextually, as you can see by what I've presented above and will continue to present, 'homosexual' means "attracted to the same gender sexually". Literal Definition(. http://dictionary.reference.com...): "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. " So as you can see, this is the definition of homosexual. On to the actual evidence presented: "Now, as you know, my debate. org page says I am heterosexual. This is true. " This refutes any point he can possibly make.
draxxt is a homosexual and wants me to give him AIDS

Now, as you know, my debate.org page says I am heterosexual. This is true. BUT, if we examine the word "homosexual" carefully, we find one important detail: The greek root "homo" means same The greek root "sex" means gender. If we break this up in an entirely different way, we may see that I loce the same gender every time. This gender is the female one. Also, if my opponent were to give me AIDS, I would be able to give myself up for the research to cure AIDS. I would endure tests and hardships all in the name of curing it for future generations. This would be a worthy and noble cause and would better mankind, something my opponent has talked highly of. For the reasons above, you vote PRO. Thank you, and I await your rebuttal. -EG (Also, if anyone is interested in the suspension story, you may find it at this site: http://www.facebook.com... )