BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

I shall present my argument. You argued that active Euthanasia should be allowed to be administered, as the choice of one's death should lie with oneself. I disagree. Firstly, if the choice of dying is to be left to oneself and the person decides it is time to die, would not it be considered as suicide instead? And is suicide morally correct? Secondly, you mentioned quality of life being the measure of whether Euthanasia should or can be administered. However, who is to judge whether the quality of life is low enough to kill a person? The person himself, you might say. However, is it not wrong to say that sometimes human beings make mistakes? Would human beings start choosing the easy way out, and instead of fighting it out with any illnesses at all, chooses to die instead? What makes their decision a right decision and not a decision where, should they still be alive, they would regret in the future? On the point of Involuntary Euthanasia, I oppose of the idea to be based entirely on the notion of the quality of life. As I've mentioned in my active Euthanasia argument, what measures the quality of life? What is, then, considered low enough to administer Euthanasia? Even more so, in this case, without the patient's consent. You mentioned that it is one's freedom and rights to decide when and how, he wants to die. Am I not right in saying that, by arguing that in the case of Involuntary Euthanasia, where it is administered by the relatives when the quality of life is deemed as being too low, we are removing or denying the person himself from deciding whether he wants to live or not, hence removing his power of choice and freedom in deciding how he wants to live or end his own life? I have not talked about the Sanctity of Life, which Pro has dismiss and disregarded, therefore I shall not touch on it. With everything tabled, I strongly oppose to the view of allowing Euthanasia, as the consequences that may be incurred from it, may be unthinkable.
The mentally handicapped people don't promote to society, so they should be eliminated.

Indeed it is. Anyways, I will start off by saying that the severely mentally ill have been viewed differently for thousands of years. In Sparta, the young diagnosed with mental retardation or any sort of deformity underwent drastic torture and eventually execution, and medieval European societies took pity upon these people, making them outcasts and forcing them down to the social level of a serf or peasant. In Africa, retarded or deformed children were rejected and killed or abandoned. These views have changed today due to the large amount of knowledge gathered over the centuries, the advantages technology gives us, and the changing points of view as a result of the coming together of multiple cultures. (Past and Present Perceptions towards disability: a historical perspective: Chomba Wa Munyi). Now onto my first reason: In 2006, the United States spent about $56.7 billion on mental illness health care and by 2030, $6 trillion will be used in that year on a global level, with many 3rd world countries spending under $1 trillion, making heavy medicine distribution countries like the US and Russia the heaviest spending countries on medical care for the mentally disabled. The reason these spending are so costly are because the medicine synthesized by experts can simply maintain the level of severity of these cases at a low and stable level. They cannot cure them. Now I ask, these people are important to their families as much as you and me are to our families, but the medicine is costly, they most likely stay under heavy care their entire lives, and live under humiliation of others, so why keep them alive? When thinking about someone you must also think about others and ask, is this current state good enough? What challenging factors will the new state bring about? The government is in heavy debt, and neglecting these people will allow more funding, improvement of many different environments, and help people in need of help that actually contribute to society. (The Global Cost of Mental Illness: Thomas Insel) Past and Present perceptions towards disability: dsq-sds.peg/article/view/3197/4068 The Global Cost of Mental Illness: https://www.nimh.nih.gov...
The mentally handicapped people don't promote to society, so they should be eliminated.

I haven't participated in any debates recently, and the last 3 that I created, I was unable to attend to in the required time due to personal reasons. For this topic, please keep in mind that this is not against the physically handicapped, but mainly the severely mentally handicapped. I will save my reasoning for the next round, as this is just an agreement between me and the contender of this argument that he or she accepts my debate request. The rules to this debate are pretty simple: -No trolling -Cite any sources used to prove your point at the bottom below your argument (including images), and state specifically where this source is being used in the argument. If you do not prove any points with specific evidence, I will not view you as a worthy opponent and I will forfeit the round. -Do not stray from the main topic, so if you start ranting about how some random subject relates to this that is a completely different matter, I will forfeit the round. -Do not accept this debate if your just going to state a very brief argument, I see many do this on this site, and I don't want to be debating with someone who wont take the time to make a long durable argument. Other than that, there's nothing else to explain.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

"It seems further that I am committed to say that, for Marx, employing such violence through revolution is consistent with reason when and if the target society refuses to recognize the condition of equality between all humans in a biological and metaphysical sense."The counter on the above point seems to be that if income equality is substantively different from-- and in no way connected with-- actual inequality (even from the standpoint of the 19th century, remember), then Marx could not sensibly, nor morally invoke revolution in a way that would escape the original charges against him. Let us assume, generously and inaccurately, that Marx’s social critique can be limited just to the inequality of income distribution. (This is inaccurate because Marx viewed income inequality as symptomatic of power inequality arising from the exploitation of society by a capitalist elite, hence again, income inequality implies deeper inequalities-- but I will abstain from rejecting my opponents concern merely on this point). However, when analyzing from the standpoint of a liberal continental intellectual of the 19th century, how could income distribution fall outside the pale of concern for societal justice? The majority of land and assets were still owned by rentiers—strangers themselves to the modern world of business. Income was not at this time viewed as money earned but, from the standpoint of the elite, money they were entitled to, irrespective of business success or failure, and from the standpoint of the poor, means by which they could survive. Money and its generation were not situated in a direct relationship to the 20th century idea of personalistic entrepeneurial struggle—at least not for the majority of people on the planet. Now there ARE a few exceptions to this rule (certain parts of Britain, Germany and the United States), but again, we don’t need to claim Marx was accurate, only that he displayed a certain quality of intelligence and morality in his theory of communism.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

"It seems further that I am committed to say that, for Marx, employing such violence through revolution is consistent with reason when and if the target society refuses to recognize the condition of equality between all humans in a biological and metaphysical sense."No, income inequality is entirely different from actual inequality, if one person creates more wealth than another, and is thus entitled to what he has produced as per common sense and common decency, this is in noway a violation against some other person.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

My interlocutor makes the keen point that violence or struggle is an essential part of Marx's theory of communism. The tough question to answer is, it seems, how one can morally justify violent redistribution of property. It seems further that I am committed to say that, for Marx, employing such violence through revolution is consistent with reason when and if the target society refuses to recognize the condition of equality between all humans in a biological and metaphysical sense. Can we ascertain that this argument for revolution is compelling in the context of the turbulent 19th century? Maybe, maybe not. I only need to defend a view of Marx that acquits him from allegations of stupidity and immorality. I need not argue or concern myself with whether his theory is actually morally justifiable, only whether his initial observations and a priori argument could be discerned by a reasonable liberal in the 19th century. My interlocutor would be surprised perhaps to hear that Marx in all likelihood would agree with the view that theft is immoral, but this is neither here nor there on the question of who is guilty of the "theft" in the first place. Is capital's tight connection to a ruling aristocracy that squeezes value out of penurious inhabitants still morally entitled to legitimate ownership rights? On intuition pumps like these, we can at least grant that there is room for serious debate that Marx could cite revolution as a legitimate tool in these circumstances in such a way where it does not run afoul of conventional moral thought. Capitalism has indeed lifted millions out of poverty. I would go so far even to say that the free-market is far superior to communism in terms of long-term prosperity and growth potential. But this falls outside of our discussion. I would also reminder my interlocutor that this debate is about the theoretical writings of Marx, not the practice, whether accurate or not, of his theory in actual political contexts. I believe my argument still sustains a view of Marx as being neither stupid nor immoral in his articulation of communism.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

Unless otherwise specified my defense is aimed at defeating the following two allegations against communism delimited in the writings of Marx; specifically, I aim to show that communism is neither (a) incredibly stupid nor (b) immoral. I will count my efforts a success if I can convincingly maintain to myself and others a position that defeats the allegations of (a) and (b). Let me define some key terms here: stupidity: lacking in some basic quality of judgement widely possessed by others immoral: acting contrary to reason when in conformity with just consideration for the relative standing of others as in some sense equal biological and metaphysical beings communism (for the purposes of this debate): the coherent theory of capital, class struggle, and labor as set forth from the writings of Marx (but not as embodied necessarily in subsequent political practice). I will argue three points in particular that I think individually defeat (a) and when in combination, defeat (b). These are: 1: Marx in his writings (attempted) melding the empirical pursuit of knowledge to implementing social reform most on either sides of the aisle today would recognize as "liberal" (small "L" and the tradition from which both the French and American revolutions were born). 2: Marx re-envisioned society not as an instrument of conformity-enforcement but as a potential vehicle of change for the benefit of all, and located, critically, within the minds of each citizen. 3: Marx, rather than destroying the concept of telos--or one's natural place in a social order--redefined it, creating as much purposive content (a socialist"s "new man" metaphysics) as he destroyed. To the best judgement of many mid-19th century liberal intellectuals (especially on the continent), the unfettered free market locked up rather than liberated productive assets, "flexible" financial markets were still defined by usurious rates of borrowing and lending, and conservative orthodoxies were posing a threat not simply against Marx"s catchall group of labor, but also against the broader aspirations of the liberal (small "L") intelligentsia as a whole. Was Marx stupid in the sense above in a situation so described for inventing his system of resource allocation? Not if we incorporate reasonable, conservative (small "C") consideration of the moral. Any liberal--from Ronald Reagan, to Bernie Sanders--would agree that man harbors certain potential in respect to reason, psychology , and spiritual essence. Marx simply expounded on an extreme interpretation of this tradition, such that communism and libertarianism hardly seem to exist in the same tradition; in the aftermath of America's and France's republican experiments, the crucible of politics made these two diverse poles hug close to each other than we would otherwise think.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

"I will be challenging the basic principles of communism set up by Karl Marx (the mooch), and explain why they are incredibly stupid and immoral." Round 1. Oh, you mean that I have to prove that Karl Marx's ideas, which he described as communism, are stupid and immoral? Yes, that's right- and Marx said thatwe should just go steal everything we need and violently usurp the means of production, which is both stupid and immoral.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

If I am challenged on account of definition, we should remember to look to the terms, above. Communism is “the coherent theory of capital, class struggle, and labor as set forth from the writings of Marx (but not as embodied necessarily in subsequent political practice).” We are approaching consideration of Marx from a theoretical perspective; we cannot ascribe to him responsibility for the actions of those who proceeded him and averred his cause if they were unfaithful to his tenets. My opponent is right to push me on the “violence” accusation. Indeed many leaders of the communist world hewed quite closely— at least at the outset—to Marx’s vision. We must be careful to appropriately situate, in accordance with Marx’s views, the relationship between violence and normative standards in communism. For Marx, without violence (let’s not pretend revolution is other than this) something that was so important for him as obtaining the aspirations of communism could not ever occur. There is established precedent for liberals across traditions to generally sanction revolution--i.e. political violence--in select cases. Just look at the U.S. Constitution. If a leader impedes on the rights of citizens, it is their duty--identical to that duty expected by communists-- to rise up against the government. American Republicanism was simply a defensive twist to the use of political violence whereas Communism took on a more offensive focus. Returning to the claim however, we can readily allow for the fact that communism as practiced was a viscerally disastrous experiment as my opponent claims—or we may not. Again this is not in dispute for the intents of this debate. What matters is Marx. Nothing yet delivered has caused me to relinquish my claim of Marx’s mental competence nor viewing him as extending legitimate moral concern to the betterment of individuals in society. I am however suitably well advised that in Marx's writings, sausage is indeed being made.
The ideas of communism are incredibly stupid and immoral

This debate is regarding Communism- I stated that stealing everyone's stuff and brutally usurping the means of production is called murder, and stealing, which are immoral. Communism is thus immoral, but now my opponent is trying to state that this is OK- some how or another, because rich people produce more wealth than poor people, and benefit more people than poor people. Incredibly stupid, and immoral.
ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

Many thanks for RoyLatham for initiating this debate.All of us share a single planet. While science fiction enthusiasts may disagree, this is the only planet we have got for foreseeable future. It is important for us to manage our resources wisely and to dispose wastes in a sustainable manner, so that we can pass on a beautiful planet to the next generation.To take informed decisions about our future, we need knowledge about technologies available to us. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is an important technology which is not very well known by general public. We hope that this debate will serve to enhance the awareness of our dear readers.Pro will argue that the benefits obtained from large scale deployment of CCS are not worth the costs for the foreseeable future. The Pro position does not deny further research into the technology.Con will argue that CCS technology is already good enough for us to move ahead with gradual and mandatory deployment at industries which produce large amount of CO2 (such as Thermal Power Plants). Con position does not imply that we should switch over to the new technology overnight.Waiting for opening arguments from my esteemed opponent.
ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

Carbon capture and storage (or carbon capture and sequestration, CCS) is the process of collecting the carbon dioxide emissions from a fossil fuel power plant or other large industrial facility and storing the CO2 so it does not enter the atmosphere. Some general background is given in a Wikipedia article [1. https://en.wikipedia.org...]. This debate is about whether the costs of CCS outweigh the benefits. The debate is to be judged on the preponderance of evidence for one side or the other. The scope of the debate is limited to large point sources of CO2.This debate is in the DDO Official Debate Tournament 1. [2. http://www.debate.org...]Thanks to my opponent for taking up this topic. As far as I know, it hasn't been debated before on this site. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments are allowed.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Dropped arguments are not immediately counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
apples taste better then oranges

Oranges taste waayyy better than oranges, for the following reasons: 1) Orange Chocolate Do you ever see apple flavor in chocolate bars? Nope. Orange flavors and chocolate flavors go together for the very obvious reason that both oranges and chocolate are amazing. 2) Oranges don't have cyanide Apples have cyanide in the seeds. As this can kill you, I hardly consider it a good flavor. Oranges don't have this problem. 3) Color = fruit Oranges are so good that they have a beautiful color named in their honor. 4) Oranges come in sections This makes them taste even better because they are already designed for eating, so you can get right to enjoying their amazing flavor without the mess of just biting an apple.
is god real

Personal experience is not credible evidence, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims. "How do you think that people entered the world lighting hitting a pole of chemicals making you can't happen it illogical." Not to be mean, but I find this hard to understand because of your poor grammar. This says nothing about the existence of a deity. "we got a new car it ran and we got to a hill we new that the van would not make it up the hill." So, the story is: Your church group's van stopped working for unknown reasons, your group got a new car that worked, and you thought the van couldn't make it up a hill... and there's no resolution to this story, it just abruptly ends. None of that proves anything supernatural, like a supernatural deity AKA God. No, in my analogy there was no angel. If god can't pick up the rock but an angel can, then god is not omnipotent, if you're saying that the angel is part of god's power then god still failed to create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it, which includes any incarnation of him. The point remains that god cannot lift the rock, even if someone else does. Giving god dependence takes away from his omnipotence.
is god real

People saw each of these things. How do you think that people entered the world lighting hitting a pole of chemicals making you can't happen it illogical. You probity will ask me why wont god listen wen you pray the ancer to that is god dos listen he help me kept my friends alive god anders yes no or many later. My church ones this van it is in perfect condition but wen went down to Kentucky from Michigan no you might know they are many hills there vary steep now were at a camp and evry one loaded in the van but it wont start so we cheek the van it was fin but wen we got a new car it ran and we got to a hill we new that the van would not make it up the hill. There is a museum in Kentucky If you go there you will have all of your ancers Go to a crishrten church and ask the paster all of your questions god did not move the rock an angel did. There was a man who was blest by god who could move that rock he was the strongest man alive but is a blade ruches his hair hel will no longer be that strong. Read the bible red it.
is god real

These are just stories, not evidence. God never sent an angel to move the rock in my analogy. How did he move the metaphorical rock? It doesn't really matter, just that he did, and it makes no sense for him to be able to lift a rock that he made so heavy that even he cannot lift it, but if he's not able to lift it then he is not omnipotent, but if he's able to lift it then he is illogical, so I can't explain how he illogically lifted the rock, but if he's truly omnipotent then he can. The Bible being written by several people does not prove a deity, writing is something a lot of people are capable of, there's nothing supernatural about writing or written books. How would god intervening, stopping people from doing bad things be taking away free will? The person will still have the will, but not be able to enact it. It isn't worth it let everyone be able to do whatever they want, especially if you can stop something bad from happening. Science does not say that the Earth will be knocked out of orbit, that's psuedo-science, which is not real science. PS: You can make paragraphs by pressing Shift and Enter.