BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

So first of all, when looking at the topic in conjunction with my opponent's constructive statements, we see that my opponent has the burden of proof to show us that Euthanasia is beneficial. Now in order to do this, my opponent has take the route of saying that if a person has the right to life, they have the right to death. Now as the Con, my burden is not to prove that Euthanasia is a bad thing (although I could, and will do so) but simply to disprove my opponent. So with that, I will get into my refutation of the Pro's arguments. Pro- As previously stated my opponent and further clarified by myself, my opponent's only argument thus far is that because people have a right to life, they have a right to death as well. However this is a complete and utter fallacy. The only way this could be a true statement, is if both live and death where the same thing they are not. According to Princeton. net [1] Life, is the period of between the present until death. (meaning that death is separate from life. ) where as Death [2] is the absence of life. Now my opponent furthers this claim by saying that if a person no longer wishes to suffer, they should be able to just end their own life and be done with the suffering. To this I have several arguments- First, people are not creatures independent of the need of others. Accordingly when we are around others we develop emotional attachment to them. So by a person ending their own suffering they thereby cause others who loved this person to suffer. Which dramatically infringes upon their rights. Second, there is always hope. For some-one to end their life that would indicate that they have no hope of ever getting better. However there are many many many example of people who have had so called "terminal" diseases and have come back from the brink of them. I can contend that my own father was one of these people (however I know an argument like that has no place in a debate) so we can instead look to the case of [3] Brenda who had been given only six months to live, but as of April 14th 2007 was declared completely free of illness. Third, suicide is the easy way out. Let's take a moment to look at how rapidly medicine is advancing every single day. There are diseases that have literally been wiped completely out! Small pox [4] is just one of the many examples of this. But not only that there are medical treatments here now in 2011 that we couldn't even have dreamt of only a few years ago! And so, keeping all of this in mind, we have absolutely no reason to vote for the Pro in this debate. Instead you must negate, and vote Con. I now hand the debate back over to my opponent! [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] . http://www.metacafe.com... [4] . http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.
The media is liberally biased

Wow ok. That escalated quickly. So there are a couple thing here that I'd to touch on: 1) My argument following yours sought to poke some holes into the study. If I can render your proof as irrelevant, then you don't have any support for your claim and that's really half the battle. Since this is technically the closing remarks, let me give you a link to a collection of articles that argue against Tim Groseclose's Theory which is what I think you posted and give way to the idea that the media isn't really that liberally biased: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You can find many counter arguments. One of which is that a lot of reporters are themselves liberally biased, and/or the intensity of the writers/anchorman as another factor. Another article https://www.dartmouth.edu... exposes an assumption of Groseclose, which is that, "advocacy process in which members of Congress cite think tanks and interest groups in floor speeches somehow parallels the journalistic process by which reporters cite those groups in their reporting." To which he raises 3 possible deviations. They are listed below and if you're interested, you can actually read in more detail in the link above: - Asymmetries in Technocratic or Subject-Matter Expertise - Asymmetries in Public Relations and Marketing Skills - Asymmetries in Citations over time. 2. You did define liberal and conservative but your definitions are counter to your own actual post [which is actually in the 3rd round]. That was my point. I did a search on what I believe to be the original article [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu...] and out of all 47 pages, there's no mention of the word establishment. Perhaps I missed something but ya... 3. Just intrigued by the assumption that you think I'm female and how you base rant about how I am a poor debater around that...I dunno man, that seems pretty over the line to be honest. We may be getting a female president soon and I'm pretty sure she can debate~ Anyways, let's let the voters decide~ I do have to thank-you though cause I learned a little more about politics from this.
The media is liberally biased

With all respects, you shouldn't believe everything you hear or just because it got published somewhere. In my opinion, this piece (which to be honest, looks copy and pasted, and totally devoid of your own opinions) does you no favors. Here are my reasons: 1. The time frame studied seems to be from 1990 to 2003. That was 12 years ago. How do I know things haven't changed since then? Maybe some of the media outlets is under new management? What about online media? Does it account for those? The scale it uses is based off the opinions of actual people. I'm pretty sure the political office make-up has changed since then. 2. This article does seem to be written by people knowledgeable in the field so likely when they mean conservative and liberal, they mean the actual definitions of conservatism and liberalism, neither of which really stem from the "establishment" which is how you defined them. 3. In the article, although it only gives 2 media outlets that are classified as right-centrist, it hardly means that the media is "liberally" biased. This kind of ties in with the first point but how I do know there aren't other media outlets that just aren't being listed? Also, perhaps I just misunderstand you but to me, a liberally biased media would mean that ALL outlets would have to give a more liberal perspective vs a conservative perspective. Here, with this article I feel you're just trying to say that the number of liberal media outlets outnumber the number of conservatives which again may not be true. Maybe the authors themselves are just liberals... Look forward to your reply.
The media is liberally biased

The words liberal and conservative can mean a lot of things, so to keep things simple I'll define the terms. The terms are negotiable before accepting, but not afterwords. Since traditionally liberals are pro government and want more of it Wilde fine them as "pro establishment" and the conservatives being against government would be called "anti establishment". Definitions Liberal-Pro-establishment Conservative- Anti-establishment. ------------------ This is a split BOP debate. Con must prove that the mainstream media has a conservative/anti-establishment bias, while I must show the media has a liberal bias. Good luck. First round is acceptance. Edit: Somebody asked me to specify which media, so I'll specify now. This is the United States Media. I'll also add that this is an "in general" or "on balance" statement, and refers to television media. Also I need a good reason to change the definitions. Claiming that Democrats like Barack Obama are more anti establishment than Republicans like Ron Paul is absurd.
I Have No Excuse For Living

Agree with God and God will agree with you. God loves you, He only wants you to agree with Him and trust Him to save you from Hell. Ask Him to save you in Jesus's name and He will save you. Jesus paid for your sin so God is satisfied that your sin is paid and you can be forgiven. He promised He would forgive you of all of your sin if you will receive His Son as your Saviour, He paid for all of your sins when He died in your place on the cross. Only admit that you are the sinner who deserves to die, believe God loved you so much He took your death as Jesus Christ so He can forgive you because He paid for you. He paid the price to buy you back from Hell. That's the price of sin, Hell is the price we pay for sin. God wants to own you as His property, God wants you to receive Jesus Christ by faith in His Word and be forgiven and saved from Hell Only say, "Dear God, I know I'm a sinner and I deserve to die and burn in Hell. I believe you want me to go to heaven and not Hell, so you gave your Son to pay for my sins. I'm believing Jesus is God and He is risen from the dead, and I'm receiving Him now as my Saviour, asking you in Jesus' name to save me and I believe you will. Thank you for saving me from Hell and giving me home in heaven. Thank you for making me your child. That's all there is to it! Believe God, take Him at His Word. Did you hear Jesus knocking at your door? Did you open that door of your heart and invite Him in? Did you believe God and get saved from Hell?
I Have No Excuse For Living

You might want to say something like "Dear God, I know I'm a sinner and I deserve to die and burn in Hell. I believe you came down from heaven as the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and paid for my sins with your sinless blood so you can be just to execute punishment against sinners and you can be my justified in your resurrection, showing me mercy because I have no other hope but to hope in your mercy. I'm calling on you now in the name of Jesus to save me from Hell. I believe I am forgiven because He took my sins on himself, buried them, and rose from the grave to forgive all who believe on Him and call on Him to save them. I'm receiving Jesus now as my Saviour. Thank you God, for saving me from the fire of Hell and giving me a place in heaven.If you prayed something like this, you can take God at His word and be sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven.
I Have No Excuse For Living

I'm not going to burn in Hell because God Himself paid for my sins with His own blood, He buried my sins and rose from the grave, I am forgiven and going to heaven. I deserve to burn in hell the same as you because we have both broken God's law. If you break God's law in one point, you are guilty of breaking the whole law of God. You don't have to be a murderer to burn in Hell, all you have to be is somebody who is too proud to admit that they don't have an excuse for living and too proud to admit that they deserve to burn in Hell.
I Have No Excuse For Living

I know I deserve to die and burn in Hell, and I believe the same goes for you. Only the mercy of God permits me to live, only His mercy permits me to have eternal life secure in His promise of heaven through His blood payment for my sin in Jesus Christ. Can anybody argue differently? Put your tinking cap on and give it a shot. Show your smarts. Don't be afraid.No comments to be posted by pro or con in this debase. Comments allowed from the peanut gallery only.
The Social Network should have won best picture

This argument will have only 1 round so say what you need to say now please. The King's Speech was an undeserved victor. The film, while joyous and more than an accomplished piece of film-making, did not exemplify the best of what this little blue planet has to offer. It was 'the film of the moment' not 'a film for the ages'. In my mind that honour goes to The Social Network. The King's Speech for all its many positives, doesn't have anything more to offer other than a by-the-numbers 'triumph over adversity' flick. The Best Picture (whether or not such a thing can even really exist is open to massive debate) should be a film that stands the test of time. Barely 12 hours after the ceremony it may seem an extraordinary claim to make but, for me, The Social Network has that honour nailed down flat. When it was first announced that David 'Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac' Fincher was making a movie about Facebook with a role for Justin Timberlake, cineastes checked their calendars to make sure it wasn't the first of April. A lack of faith that would prove, if not disturbing, at least unnecessary. Just as Fight Club wasn't a film about people punching each other, The Social Network was never going to be a film about our ability to poke. Instead it was a film about ambition, about arrogance, about friendship and rivalry. It was about privilege and popularity, elitism and alienation. It threw a mirror onto an entire generation and asked what you thought, offering but not hiding behind it's own opinion. Jesse Eisenberg gives a complex performance of a complex character that challenges each and every viewer to put up their own interpretation of who he is. That a real Mark Zuckerberg walks the earth with similar qualities to this creation should not lead you to believe for even one moment that Eisenberg is playing a real life person. His Zuckerberg is a 'role' written by Aaron Sorkin, made alive by Jesse's own ability to infuse him with mannerisms and emotions that support the film. Justin, Was able to pull off this role and do it amazingly too. It's been named Best Picture by the Critics' Choice Awards, the National Society of Film Critics, the New York Film Critics Awards, and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. And as of Sunday, January 16, it is the Best Drama of the year, according to the Golden Globes. Coming as a close second too the king speech in almost every category(nominated for 8 awards, won 3. With the people who choose the everything, they have a high tendency to pick movies more"classical" taking place years ago. Obviously, they would favor the kings speech over the social network, witch is so new and for a younger viewer. The social network should have at least won best picture if we had voters who have picked a wide range of movies, like the Golden Globes. Oh, I forgot. They did.
Moral Argument: Meat Eating

The consumption of animal flesh by modern human beings is morally wrong. Humans have moved beyond the necessity of killing and eating animals for food. We have socially evolved beyond eating other animals. In ages gone by, humans have had to struggle against the wilderness. Every scrap of food was precious, and every hunt could mean life or death for the tribe or family. Eating animals was an absolute necessity for survival. But today, modern humans living in developed countries aren't 'struggling against the wilderness' anymore. Modern humans have it easy. We walk into clean grocery stores, and select pre-made foods in shiny packages. Foods that we did not grow, produce, or hunt for ourselves. Just about everything we need is readily available to us, and is usually just a short drive away. Socially, humans have evolved, and our pattern of life has transformed. We can create living spaces that suit our aesthetic preferences. (architecture) We can now travel faster and more efficiently than ever before. (modern transpiration) Most modern humans have outgrown barbaric religious practices. (such as human sacrifice) And yet, we humans continue to cling to an outdated and unnecessary practice: killing other animals and eating their bodies. *1. Animal flesh is NOT necessary to the human diet. Studies have found that diets based on plant material provide everything that a meat based diet provides. PDF, American Dietetic Association: http://www.vrg.org... 2. Studies comparing vegetarians and meat eaters have found that eating less meat or no meat at all lowered the risks of certain diseases, including heart disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://www.ajcn.org... 3. Intense suffering is inflicted to reap this unnecessary product: ASPCA, "what is a factory farm?" http://www.aspca.org... Clips from the film "Death on a Factory Farm" http://www.vegansoapbox.com... Such suffering CANNOT be morally justified when it is wholly unnecessary. 4. Whatever your view on the intellectual level of animals, what 'food animals' must endure while trapped in the modern meat system is barbaric and wrong. It has been documented that certain food animals, especially pigs, are exceptionally clever, and fully capable of perceiving pain and responding to suffering, much like ourselves. Dr. Donald Broom of Cambridge University: http://proquest.umi.com... If a vegetarian diet provides everything a human needs to survive, how can we humans morally justify the suffering inflicted on the sentient animals we insist on eating?
On Reservations,Sovereignty Claims by Indigenous Ppl Ought to be Prioritized Above USFG Power

The fact of the matter is that allowing Native Americans complete and total freedom in their decisions will risk a negative impact to Americans. They have many freedoms now, we just protect ourselves by not giving them complete and total control over their politics. There is no reason provided by the affirmative proving that the moral dilemma we find with the natives is going to outweigh the risk to our citizens.
On Reservations,Sovereignty Claims by Indigenous Ppl Ought to be Prioritized Above USFG Power

First off, my opponent has dropped my criterion, and has agreed with my value. Furthermore, he has no counter definitions, so we can assume he agrees with mine. Next, he drops my first observation, so he agrees we ARE, in fact, just talking about sovereignty on reservations. Now for his first actual argument, against my second observation. I put this in my case to show America's hypocrisy: it says that it values liberty and republicanism, but rejects any claim by Native Americans to these rights. This is all discussed in my contentions, I guess he didn't catch them. Moving on, I would say that my opponent also dropped my contentions and said nothing against them. He did say that he had other arguments, though, so I'll not complain any more about drops. ^_^ His first contention is completely false, because I never stated anywhere that the liberty of american citizens and the liberty of native americans had to conflict. In fact, they don't at all. My opponent may try and give you the numbers argument: does that in any way have ANY impact on whether or not Native Americans should have their rights? I think not. Furthermore, I never blamed the American people for stealing the land: I blame the American GOVERNMENT for not giving them what they rightfully deserve, just like we rightfully deserved exactly 233 years ago: freedom and liberty. In my opponent's second contention, he blatantly segregates the Native American people, accusing them of atrocities they MIGHT commit. Let me ask this, however: would England not have had similar concerns regarding America when she was still simple colonies, that she might unite with a more powerful nation and bring them down? However, when we took our OWN independence from England, we did none of that. Personally, I believe that, no matter what my opponent may try and wrongfully suggest these people might do, that they are any less deserving of what they deserve: liberty. It is now my opponent's turn to rebut. Good round! ^__^ Due to my opponent's idea, I would suggest further that we continue on this debate after this third round, so that we may conclude properly. ^_^ Thank you all, for your comments and for just reading.
Abandoned websites should be taken down.

This may be the with some, namely the fluff-websites like the one you cited, but not all. Many, many of the unused sites are simply outdated, or just there for no reason. They are, however, personal property. For the ones that are lent, by all means let them be retaken. For the ones that are personal property, let them be as long as the owner desires them to be. Thank! Renzzy
Abandoned websites should be taken down.

Thanks for joining the debate, Renzzy. I will make my reply brief as I am pushed for time. You say websites are personal property, but I'm not sure this is really the case. For example, the website I cited as an example in R1 is hosted by Yahoo! completely buck shee! - It has never cost the webmaster a penny! It is like someone lending you their car free of charge. Very generous of them, surely? However, if one day they want it back, you can hardly refuse, can you? Anyway, must dash but I look forward to reading your reply. Cheers!
Abandoned websites should be taken down.

I am going to go out on a limb and try this one. We will see how it turns out ;) I have one simple argument: Websites that are not being used should not be raken down because they are personal property. That server space is bought and pated for, and taking it down would be comparable to stealing. If you buy abox of fruit simply to let it sit on your porch and rot, nobody hasd anything to say about it. It is your box of fruit. Same with a website. If you used your server space for absolutely nothing of any importance, nobody should have the right to remove it without your permission. If they start removing personal server space, what next? Cars that have not been driven in a certain amount of time? Houses tha are only used once every two years? Thanks, Renzzy
Abandoned websites should be taken down.

There are 162,662,052 websites on the Internet, yet only 65,600,000 of them are active.* The others just take up valuable server space. They are also very irritating because they clog up the search engines, making it difficult to "sort the wheat from the chaff". For example, take a look at this online outrage: http://www.geocities.com... This insult to the Internet hasn't been updated for over five years, yet if you Google "comedy scripts" it's right up there with proper comedy websites produced by really funny people. Indeed, so far this year it has wasted the time of 40,643 joke-seekers. Web-based dens of iniquity like this are a wicked waste of web space and they should be closed down forthwith. Furthermore the owners should be permanently barred from setting up new websites as punishment for their crimes against cyberspace. * Source: http://news.netcraft.com...
srk is the greatest actor in bollywood.

SRK might be a great actor but I don't believe that he is the greatest actor in bollywood. All the examples provided by PRO seem to be based on his own opinions and I'm sure there would be thousands who would beg to differ.Right of the bat there are several actors much better than SRK like Krithik Roshan and Amitabh Bachan. SRK has come a long way but he has still miles ahead of him before he can be crowned as the greatest actor ever.
srk is the greatest actor in bollywood.

shahruk khan is one of the versatile actors in bollywood today. He can fit into any character quite easily. His films are varied in genre and don't lack in substantives he is the ultra villain in anjaam,while on other occasions he is the lover boy in ddlj. he perfects his roles in such a way that he does not make us say that he cannot handle a specific role. Honestly speaking, for most of the other actors such a variation in acting skill is not visible. Though aamir in fanaa brought out something special his villainous outlook was out shadowed by his own romantic brilliance but srk in bazigar remained a perfectly negative character. Similarly in anjaam srk made us hate him through his ultra villainous role but he still has provided us with some lovely characters like raj in ddlj. because of all these he seems to be miles ahead of almost all other bollywood actors.