BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

Many people may see Euthanasia as way to end suffering and pain of a loved one. But Euthanasia contains not only ethical and practical issues, but also historical and religious. An appropriate example that voluntary Euthanasia is the first step that leads to involuntary Euthanasia can be found in the Netherlands. Alarming statistics indicates that in the past twenty years, in thousands of cases, decisions that were intended to end a competent patient's life were made without consulting the patient himself. Many patients are able to overcome their condition if given the time, although many are not given the choice whether they wish to live because their family or acquaintances somehow convinces the physicians to initiate Euthanasia. The rights of humans are being questioned and Euthanasia might not be in a persons best interests. If it was to be legalized in the USA it would in the worst case result that people will begin to accept that some lives are worth less then others, such as the mentally unstable or the disabled, even the poor. Likewise, physicians in the USA can all acknowledge that Euthanasia is not the solution for people who are suffering from psychological disorder, there are many ways to ensure that those people will move on with their lives instead of ending it too soon. Practically speaking, Euthanasia is irrelevant if proper palliative care is ensured which is not hard to achieve, and legalizing Euthanasia will lead to less good care for the incurably ill. By killing every person who decides, or is deemed, incurable, it will only discourage the search for new cures and medicine for the terminally sick, and it will cripple the motivation for good care for not only the dying and good pain relief for those who are in need, but it will also weaken the care for people who have just been diagnosed with a terminal disease. Said person has no option, or right, to be treated since Euthanasia will seem as the only true solution to the problem.
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

I strongly agree with there being an age limit on euthanasia due to children finding it more traumatizing and difficult in making such a controversial decision, and euthanasia should only be permitted for somebody over the age of 18. That being said, after that age the patient has complete control over their decision to end their life and it is justifiable for an adult to make their own calculated decision. Furthermore, whilst I agree there is a psychological issue of contemplating your own death, I would assume the physical and mental pain from being in the condition they are in outweighs the psychological pain of choosing to die or not. Even if they choose to prolong their life, the inevitable thought will always be at the back of their mind and they will never be able to escape it, so there may be many times when the patient is close to choosing to go through with the process of euthanasia, which leads to even more psychological disorders. The worst part is that the patient will often find it extremely hard to describe these thoughts due to a lack of in-depth communication if they cannot speak, and these conditions can be developed by the family as well. We cannot ask patients if euthanasia was a better solution to living due to the obvious fact that we cannot talk to the deceased, however at the point in their life when they chose it they had two options: 1. To continue living and 2. To opt for euthanasia. For a completely conscious adult to choose the second option they will have known that there is no coming back after it is done, so there must have been stronger reasons for that person, and to a lesser extent their family and friends, to choose option 2 to end their life.
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

Animals of course have rights too, but in the world we live in today, people are more likely to worry about humans then animals, sadly. Some may say that animals are able to make decisions about whether they wish to die. For certain species, if an individual is badly injured, the animal in most cases chooses to leave the flock and die more quikcly by avoiding eating. For humans it is not black and white. We all experience the difficulty of make a choice, especially in a young age. An already overburdened patient who are not yet old enough to even consider ending their own life. Children and young people, even those who are suffering from an illness, have so much hope and faith in the doctors and in the people around them, that they cannot handel the idea of dying already. It is a huge psychological burden. If someone were asked to choose regarding Euhanasia it would conflict with said person"s self-preservation and put major pressure on someone so young. Many countries are discussing that if they allow Euthanasia, an age limitation must be in place to insure that the number of youths who apply for help to die will not increase in the folowing years. No one can guarantee you that death is the best solution since we cannot ask patients who have chosen to die. A child, or teenager, finds no real assurance from physicians or anyone around them when faced with the choice of life or death. Of course parents have the authority to make decisions on the behalf of their children. But is it really all right for a mother and a father to allow the doctor to give their a child a lethal injection, when the child is not even old enough to understand, or lacks the knowledge of what is about to happen? Making children go through the choice of Euthanasia, or even as far as being killed without consulting with their parents, are not acceptable. It is completely fine with those long answers since I am a student too and am supposed to discuss this.
Public Media Censorship should be enforced

I believe that public media censorship should not be enforced. This is because I believe that every single person on this planet has the right to free speech. And it's not just me saying this. One of the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every human is entitled to free expression. Quoting Article Nineteen of the UDHR; "This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference." Take the words "without interference", and see how the censorship of international and national public media destroys it. Not just by censoring opinions people because they may have been cursing or using harsh terms, but just because their points or arguments are too controversial for the public eye to view. As you can see, public media censorship can go much further than just crossing out a few curse words. It can destroy an entire written opinion into something that might not even make sense after it has been censored. That doesn't sound like something "without interference" now does it?
I can answer any question you have.

Definitions: can: to be capable of performing a specified action answer: a correct response to a question about knowledge of some information (Dictionary.com) NOTE: "I don't know" is incorrect because it does not state the correct answer. --- Contention 1 Some questions do not have correct answer; thus, my opponent can't answer them. Examples: 1. What is the correct response to this question? 2. Hey atheists: If God doesn't exist, what by even how some when before was like? Checkmate. 3. What does red taste like? 4. What? 5. What is my name? Answer in 0 words or less.
Biblical self defense

Response: Point 1. Love your enemy I like to point out three things: 1. Proverbs 25:21 says "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink". This verse is in the OT and as anyone familiar with the Bible will tell you the OT has many passages to kill the enemy and it was said by God. So is this verse talking about the enemy that you fight in war or is it talking about the enemy that lives next door and hates you? 2. Both of the verses pertaining to loving your enemy has a personal pronoun. Meaning that its not saying "love the enemy" but rather "love your enemy". 3. As any parent will tell you that they love their children, but they have to punish them sometimes because of their wrongdoings. That doesn't mean that they hate them, in fact, the very reason they are punishing the child is because they love them. If I stop someone from murdering someone else or me, I love them enough to make them stop doing it, whatever it takes to stop him. Point 2. Turn the other cheek I like to point out two things: 1. Back then (and still now) a slap on the cheek was more of an insult rather than an assault. 2. Notice Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not give the other limb.
The Concept of 'Western Culture' is rooted in racism

The Idea of Western Culture came about at the same time as the Idea of Race. Culture itself is a meta-narrative invented for the purpose of enforcing a hegemony that has a racist basis. Most people define the West as including Europe and Northern North America. What do those places have in common? They are and have historically been predominantly white-majority. This is not to suggest that modern usages of terms like 'Culture' are inherently racist, but say that they have racist origins and are meant to make a distinction between 'mainstream' straight, white culture, and otherwise oppressed or marginalized groups of people. A postmodernist might say that the idea of culture is rooted in racism and other forms of prejudice also because some of what we define as 'cultures' are actually just the nuances of one group of marginalized people as compared to the 'mainstream'. So for instance, a postmodernist might say that the idea of 'Black Culture' or 'Gay Culture' are inherent representations of how Straight, White, Christian People want to make a cultural distinction between them and The Other. I agree with this idea.
Embargo on Cuba

Do you really think any of the direct trade income would flow through the hands of the Cubans? No, this is not a capitalistic state this has a pure communist regime in place. Why should we make deals with people associated with dictatorships? We shouldn't that defeats American principles. You also must not be aware that Castro was not opened to ending the embargo because he felt secure about the isolationism. But due to the isolationism Cuban-Americans believe it can spark revolts of some kinds
Embargo on Cuba

Why do we insist on enforcing these restrictions on the government of Cuba. This is completely unethical, and this is the only communist nation that we do this to, If we required this for all communist nations then it would be ethical but since we only do it to Cuba it is completely unjustifiable. We (Gov't) think we can impose restrictions on Cuba no other nations and that is not fair to Cuba. It is not required of other communist nations so should not be required of Cuba. This is an old grudge
Embargo on Cuba

The Embargo on Cuba is unjust and needs to be demolished. Why does the United States support this Embargo? there is no answer to this question. They may justify it by saying that they are communist or repressive. We trade with both Laos and Vietnam. Both governments are communist and the government of Laos has been known to be repressive in the past. This trade Embargo is unfair and unjust to the people of Cuba and the Cuban government. The communist nation of Cuba is not and will not b a threat
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

You are correct that abiogenesis explains the origin of life; however, I am not talking about the origin of life, I am talking about the origin of homo sapiens. The origin of homo sapiens is part of evolution, As I outlined previously. Evolution does not make claims about life’s origins; however, It does make claims about the origins of species following life’s initial inception. I am not proposing a false dichotomy, Because both of these views, Although entirely conflicting, Try to explain how homo sapiens arose. Creationism claims homo sapiens arose from clay and magic, And evolution claims homo sapiens arose from their evolutionary ancestors via natural selection and other evolutionary pressures. You are further incorrect by conflating creationism and theory. Creationism is not a theory. It makes no testable future novel predictions, And its testable claims have been falsified numerous times over by science. You are correct that Genesis makes no proclamations about animal adaptations due to environment pressure. To think it could would be ludicrous considering its authors were science illiterate stone/bronze age primals with no knowledge of genetics or speciation. It does however refer to all "kinds" being made by a creator God, Mankind specifically, And those kinds are the archetypes for their species. If all animals were made at once in a 7-day period, It's impossible for them to all be a chronological progressing product of evolutionary lineage. Once again, This presents another contradicting claim to evolution. The two views are vastly different and entirely contradictive. Once again, I assert that holding both views simultaneously is irrational. Back to you.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

"It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously"Evolution, As I understand it, Explains how living organisms can change into new, Better adapted living organisms. Evolution does not, And has not ever claimed to explain the origin of life itself. In science, The study of the origin of life is called "Abiogenesis". According to the Abiogenesis Wikipedia page, There are 24 current scientific theories that attempt to explain the origin of life. You'll notice that "Evolution" is not among them. [1]. [1]en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Abiogenesis--Creationism, Is simply another theory that tries to explain the origin of life. Genesis says nothing about how animals adapt due to environmental pressure. You are proposing a false dichotomy. This is like saying you can't believe in ghosts if you don't like vanilla icecream. The two have nothing to do with each other, This is not an "either/or" kind of problem.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

For clarification, I am referring to Biblical Creationism (Genesis 1 & 2) and the mainstream evolutionary theory (supported by scientific consensus). I am referring to the common usage/definition of irrational: not logical or reasonable. Round 1: Acceptance/Opening argumentRound 2: RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals/Closing argumentsOpening ArgumentThis is a large subject, So I will attempt to focus my argument to homo sapiens. The Creationist view is that God created homo sapiens and all other life, Including the entire universe in 7 days or less. Adam and Eve were the original homo sapien archetypes in which all modern homo sapiens derived from. Adam and Eve were made of clay and magic, So no homo sapien can trace their genetic lineage beyond these two archetypes. Adam and Eve collectively originated the human "kind". The evolutionist view is that homo sapiens are the product of a long evolutionary descent that extends far beyond our homo sapien species. There were never only two humans, According to evolutionary theory; there were approximately 2-3 thousand in existence around our metaphorical inception, And no evidence suggests that inception was divinely inspired. These two views are entirely conflicting, And holding them simultaneously is not logical or reasonable (irrational).
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

If your premise was "that Genesis disagrees with Evolution on how humans came to be" then, Yeah I agree with you. But that's not your premise. Your premise is that "It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously". My opponent believes that Evolution and Creationism "are entirely contrasting views". I disagree. I've pointed out that: Evolution says nothing about the creation of life Creationism says nothing about the evolution of life Casting two ideas as contradictory, Simply because they have a few points of conflict, Is dishonest ---"A person cannot believe the tenants of Creationism and the facts of evolution and be considered rational. They can compartmentalize and "believe" both, But that would not be considered rational. "So would you hold the following views as irrational too then, Simply because they have some contradictory points? I believe in the 2nd amendment - people should have the right to bear arms. I also believe that ex-cons convicted of violent crimes should not have the right to bear arms. I believe that people should have the right to free speech, However I also believe that people should not be allowed to verbally attack others based on race or ethnicity. I believe that god created life, However I also believe that animals evolve over time. *not my actual viewpoints - just there for the sake of argument---Again, I assert that "It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously" is a false dichotomy. Just because two views don't agree on 100% of all points doesn't mean you can cast them as ONE OR THE OTHER. It just seems dishonest. Thank you for the rational debate Killshot, And thanks all for reading.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

You said "Now I understand that scripture and science have very different ideas about our early ancestors. " Yes, Exactly. There are many overlapping points between evolution and Creationism, Particularly around speciation. Because they are entirely contrasting views, One cannot believe humans were made from clay/magic AND believe humans arose from ancestral evolution - while being rational. This is my whole argument. A person cannot believe the tenants of Creationism and the facts of evolution and be considered rational. They can compartmentalize and "believe" both, But that would not be considered rational. Some people choose to believe that God created life, And life evolved from there. I see no conflict with this. You are essentially "gatekeeping" evolution. Spiritual people are allowed to believe in science too. That is perfectly fine, They can believe both of those - but that is NOT Creationism and it's irrelevant to this debate. That is something they just made up to aid them in compartmentalizing their internal dichotomy. Their Genesis books are clear and if they choose to eliminate pieces of it so they can compartmentalize it better - that is disingenuous.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

Now I understand that scripture and science have very different ideas about our early ancestors. My problem is that you are positioning these two ideas as polar opposites. I would argue that you are focusing on a specific conflict point and ignoring the overall ideas behind evolution and creationism. The point of Genesis is to explain the creation of the universe and life. Evolution focuses on how life changed after it was created. These two ideas don't really describe the same thing. Just because they don't agree exactly how humans got here today does not mean they are polar opposites. It is possible for two concepts to be distantly related, Without casting them as contradictory. "If all animals were made at once in a 7-day period, It's impossible for them to all be a chronological progressing product of evolutionary lineage. "There are many interpretations of Genesis, Some literal, Some metaphorical. Some theists have argues that a "day" in god-time might be an epoch in "human time". When the bible was written people didn't have common worldwide terminology that described specific lengths of time. It's plausible that the word "day" in Genesis might not mean a literal day. "You are further incorrect by conflating creationism and theory. Creationism is not a theory. It makes no testable future novel predictions". You are correct, I was using the word theory colloquially, It doesn't fit the more stringent scientific definition. Although as far as I know none of the 24 known hypothesis of abiogenesis have created testable predictions either. We have exactly one example of life arising out of inorganic matter - we can't test something that we can't observe. We simply do not have enough data to form strong scientific arguments on this subject. To be clear, I do not believe that scientific ignorance automatically justifies creationism. I do believe in holding these ideas up to the same standard of scrutiny, However. ---Lastly, I would like to point out that it's possible to believe in two different ideas even if those ideas don't perfectly align. For example, I believe that competition is the basis of a healthy economy, However I also believe that competition should be artificially limited sometimes to grant social security and prevent monopolies. It's possible to choose a middle ground. Similarly, We wouldn't expect a conservative or liberal voter to agree 100% with their party's politics. We allow people to hold moderate views as well. Some people choose to believe that God created life, And life evolved from there. I see no conflict with this. You are essentially "gatekeeping" evolution. Spiritual people are allowed to believe in science too.
Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

Do to this being the last round I would've liked to further question my opponents statements, but am left to just state my conclusion. Although pro defines the development of life being because of evolutional evolvement, but in regards, a cell must've been created as well. As cell cannot come into existence without it may have having a beginning. Therefore evolution cannot be the most sensible model for the development of life. Instead, creationism is the most sensible model for development of life because just like people work all the time, God (who was in and before the Beginning) worked to create the whole universe and everything in it. Thanks again for the debate pro and I as well look forward to future debates! Best wishes to you! :)
Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

Thank you for your post. And I understand your points. God is the creator, this is to your question. Not sure where you get the idea of Noah's ark landing in the Middle East from? But okay.. Maybe if that be true, that the kangaroos ventured off to the other country. What's wrong with that? Plate tectonics is a nice analogy, however it doesn't exactly prove that evolution is the cause for that. Everything around us is alive. Water, trees, animals, people, insects, the earth, the atmosphere. That cannot be by conincidence of some evolution form? It does not add together. There has to be something that created it and the only explanation would be is God. How do you explain the most simplest thing as the pupil of a persons eyes? Every little detail of it is gloriously magnificent. How would evolution create such beauty? What would be the purpose of life if everything was revolved or evolved into existence? Therefore, evolution is not the most sensible model for life of development. Creationism is.
Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

Evolution is not the most sensible model for the development of life.Creation is a big reason for the development of life. Without a creator how would someone explain the "evolution" claim of things just coming to being? It doesn't. Sorry, so short of a response :/ SO busy with school, other debates, and other stuff. I'll try to make sure to reply better in my next round. Thank you for your patience Krit! Your awesome! Didn't wanna FF though either.
Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

Second round is debate (no rebuttals). Third Round is rebuttals. Fourth Round is Counter-Rebuttal. I shall be arguing for the case; Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life. The opponent would argue the opposite. Rules: 1. No Ad Hominem (Personal Attacks: attack the opponent's points, but not the opponent) 2. No Trolling 3. No plagiarising 3. Try to keep religion away from this debate, but if that proves to hard for you, then yep, put in religion Good Luck and Have Fun!