BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If someone is suffering from a terminal illness they should have the right to euthanasia

You seem to make the sweeping generalisation that terminally ill people do not benefit from services and medication used to prolong their life. My philosophy is that life should be lived until nature takes its toll, and that a life is always worth living. We should take death as a positive and necessary experience. To define euthanasia; the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Now I personally would not consider switching off life support as euthanasia. I would also not consider discontinuation of medication as euthanasia. These are unnatural solutions to elongate ones life. I do believe that these medications can reduce pain however, and that services provided by hospital staff, carers, and the like can make the dying process more comfortable. I believe your starting argument is flawed. Who is even to say whether a terminally ill person needs to take medication, or even pay for medication, as opposed to staying in bed at home and allowing themselves to die? As for hospitals and nursing homes benefitting from people who are dying, I would argue that it is a muually beneficial relationship - one that is always entered with consent of the patient given they are capable of doing so.
The Renaissance are just a continuation of the middle ages

To get the started, I say that the Renaissance is a clear ending of the Middle Age's. I say this because of the clear arguments against the church. The Philosophers came and stared challenging the church's way of thinking. They started to see the whole of the universe and how that everything did not circle the earth. They started to change the artwork, it went from mostly 2D to more of three dimensional , and unlike the Middle Ages, a lot of the artwork who the people in the art were naked. So the ideas of science and mathematics started to come around. New buildings and new design came around. So Choose Con
Capitalism

I argue that Capitalism has brought prosperity and freedom to Millions. Capitalism has, again and again, proven to be a successful system. It brings increased prosperity to all classes, from top to bottom. If you look accross the world's nations, you can see how successful Capitalism is. The nations with Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Lower Spending, and more Stable Monetary Base are the most successful. I don't just argue that capitalism is more successful than Socialism, but I also argue that free market capitalism is far more successful than the Social Democratic Economic system present in European Countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc... I argue that the slow economic growth in these countries relative to America (which has pursued a purer form of capitalism) in recent decades is an example of a freer economy performing better for all groups.
legalize euthanasia

P1- Murder is the act of killing someone with malicious intent. That's not what euthanasia is. Euthanasia is killing someone at with their permission. They are presented the option and are the ones who ultimately make their decision. When people are too ill to make their own decisions and their families make the decision to "pull the plug", is that considered murdering another human? I'm not sure it is. Why are family members allowed to make decisions about whether or not their ill family member lives and the person who is actually suffering cannot? They should be allowed to have a say because it's their life. P2- I think you keep forgetting that Euthanasia IS VOLUNTARY! Doctors are not just going to go around killing off people who are terminally ill. That's involuntary euthanasia and that is also illegal. So it's not that sick people are being victimized, they are welcome to stay alive as long as they can, however, if they want to make this choice, this should be a choice that they are allowed to make. P3- That's not what euthanasia is saying. C; Euthanasia should be legalized.
legalize euthanasia

P1- Euthanasia may be considered a better option or alternative for people who do not want to suffer from pain anymore. When people are in excrutiating pain, they make irrational decisions and one of those are suicide. They take matters into their own hands and wind up harming themselves in the process. Why should we allow people who are already in pain to experience more by killing themelves when we can present them this option which would be less painful? P2- Patients who are kept alive with no chance of getting better are using valuable resources such as medicine and hospital supplies. If the individual no longer wants to be held in the hospital for who knows how long, they should be able to give up their right to live. If it will benefit somebody else who is terribly ill, who has a chance of survival, we should respect the terminally ill person's wished to benefit the next person. P3- By the indiviudual wanting to end their lives, they are not harming anybody. If anybody will suffer from the procedure, it will be them. They should be able to make that choice. C; Euthanasia should be legalized.
legalize euthanasia

according to your P1: where you stated"Euthanasia, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick OR INJURED individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy" yet than in your following statement "euthanasia does not pressure individuals into taking euthanasia" which seem like you don't know which side to pick. P2 : Patients not wanting euthanasia would inevitably hear about their dreadful prognosis from other patients with similar medical conditions. p3No matter what the safeguards, patients not wanting euthanasia may become anxious that they will be included as victim.http://www.all.org...
legalize euthanasia

P1- Euthanasia, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick OR INJURED individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Euthanasia does not only apply to individuals who are disabled or sick. Furthermore, euthanasia is known as assistant suicide. This means that the individual is the one who makes the decision of whether or not to take his or her own life. It is voluntary. Therefore, it is the individual who decides whether or not they are worth less and want to die, not euthanasia. http://www.merriam-webster.com... P2- If we accept that euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life we should forbid a lot of other practices such as sentencing individuals to death or even the simple signing of the "DNR papers". The Do Not Resuscitate form is signed to say that if for any person the patient goes into cardiac arrest, they do not want to be revived. The doctors just "allow the natural" death and stand by until the patient eventually passes away. That relates very closely to euthanasia which is why it should be legal. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... P3- Euthanasia does not pressure individuals into doing anything. It is a free choice that the person makes. People may want to end their lives because they're tired of suffering, They may also want to end their lives because the cost to live in a hospital until they eventually die is too much to afford. At the end of they day, no one should be forced to sit through pain and suffering when they know they are not going to get better.
On Balance: Globalization has a positive effect.

I would first like to start by defining a few terms: < > process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) < > the exchange of services and goods. Globalization is occurring directly under our feet, shaping the future of our world. Due to Globalization, no longer are persons restricted from being successful because of their location or situation. For the first time ever: Intelligence is more important to success than birthplace/social status. For example, a lowly boy from the slums in India with the intelligence of Einstein will no longer be trapped in the habitat he is born into. But rather, through globalization, he will be able to harness his intelligence in schools and universities and even get a job in a major corporation. Since Globalization has spread corporations throughout the globe in a search for labor and markets, many people who would otherwise have been stuck on the family farm can make a living by working as a consultant for a corporation, or an accountant for a large bank like As Thomas Friedman said in his best selling book, The World Is Flat, Globalization has increased competition worldwide for everything from basic household necessities to telemarketing. All jobs are up for grabs, allowing only the smartest and the brightest to succeed, thus allowing for more productivity and success worldwide. So what do we tell our kids? how will they be able to get jobs in this extremely competitive world? Friedman states that global job markets will not completely lack job security, and in order to succeed, we must become masters of one of these "Untouchables" in order to succeed. the Untouchables include: - Synthesizers: those who create new products by combining technologies. - Explainers: the experts who can inform people on the ins and outs of this new flat world. - Localizers: the people who take the technology of the world and bring it down to a local scale for use by everyday people. and a few more. Competition and productivity go hand in hand. Competition forced miners to double the amount of iron ore they dug per hour, as told in one case study. In another, competition forced concrete companies to become more efficient or go under, according to Chad Syverson of the University of Chicago. And nothing increases competition for goods, services, and jobs as much as Globalization does. So with an increase in competition, there will be an increase in productivity, and thus a more progressive and forward-moving world. As people become more able to collaborate, compete and share with others of different cultures, religions, educational backgrounds and languages through globalization, the cause is the near elimination of location-determined success, a greater increase in the world job market, and a huge increase in global productivity. I wish my opponent good luck and thank you for accepting. Sources: http://www.chicagobooth.edu... The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century
Hulk is better than Superman

I guess if you don't plan on debating any longer that is fine, however i wasn't able to also talk about his healing factor because of the 500 word limit. I will however do it for the voters. Hulk's healing is faster than that of Wolverine, he has shown to regenerate skin, limbs, organs and such in seconds. This combined with his durability, strength and intelligence (see comment section) believe that the Hulk is a better character than Superman.
Hulk is better than Superman

The Hulk is one of the strongest beings in the marvel universe, with potential for limitless strength. The Hulk has withstood many impacts of ground zero nuclear explosions, the Human Torch's Nova Blast which has maximum temperature of one million degrees Fahrenheit, and the crushing pressures of 100Gs without suffering any damage which renders superman range attacks useless and must therefore have to fight hand to hand with the Hulk which will only make him angrier and increase his abilities.
If Uchiha Itachi were to battle Uzumaki Naruto, Uchiha Itachi would not be defeated.

Burn Notice is my favorite show on TV right now. Warehouse 13 is decent; I would've stopped watching after the third episode of season 1 or so if Claudia hadn't shown up. It's not just that she's hot, though that is part of it; she interacts with the other characters in ways that make the show more entertaining. Michael Westen would beat the crap out of James Bond. That is all.
If Uchiha Itachi were to battle Uzumaki Naruto, Uchiha Itachi would not be defeated.

Ya...you have really thought this out and honestly, there's no way I can think of an argument that you couldn't counter. So I'll be forfeiting. Just post an acknowledgement and this can get over quickly. Though I'll be truely forfeiting the last round as to not clog up the front page. If any voters give me points I'll find a way to slap you through the internet.
If Uchiha Itachi were to battle Uzumaki Naruto, Uchiha Itachi would not be defeated.

Hello, all. This is George Carlin Worshipper with my first debate in about half a year. Let's hope this goes well. I wish Korashk luck and hope for a good debate. As stated in the resolution, the subject of this debate will be the outcome of a theoretical battle between Uchiha Itachi and Uzumaki Naruto of the anime/manga series "Naruto". It is the job of the instigator, myself, to prove that Itachi would not be defeated by Naruto in this battle. The contender, Korashk, must prevent me from doing this, most likely by proving that Naruto would be victorious. The first round will only be used for specifying the terms of the battle and resolving definitions. Arguments will begin in Round 2. I would like to begin by defining a few central elements of the debate: For the purposes of this debate, Uchiha Itachi [1] will be taken from his state just before his death in Chapter 393, page 16 [2] and restored to an optimal physical condition. This means that he will be in a perfectly healthy living state, with Chakra levels restored to maximum, cured of the terminal disease he suffered from, and with his eyesight restored. He will possess all of his memories up to the point of his death. He will also be given all of his standard equipment, meaning his Akatsuki cloak, ninja tools, etc. Uzumaki Naruto will be in his state as of Chapter 499, page 16 [3]. He will no longer be in his trance. He will not have his pre-prepared Senjutsu Kage Bunshin [4] available for his use, as he has used them both and has not made any more since they were used up. I nominate that the battle take place on a beach beside a forest. If my opponent wishes to contest this battlefield, he may do so, and we will arrive on an agreement before Round 2 via Private Message. For the purposes of this debate, wikis will be treated as valid sources due to the high number of sources cited for each page and their convenience in terms of research. This decision is for the convenience of each debater. Due to the complete lack of information available on the subject, I ask that Uchiha Itachi's "gift" to Naruto [5] be disregarded for the purposes of this debate. This subject will take up undue amounts of time and its nature is virtually impossible to prove with the available evidence. For the purposes of the battle, the two will begin standing six yards away from each other on the beach, situated so that neither the ocean nor the forest is to either combatant's back. The two will be facing each other. I look forward to this debate and wish my opponent luck. [1] http://naruto.wikia.com... [2] http://www.onemanga.com... [3] http://www.onemanga.com... [4] http://www.onemanga.com... Pgs. 6-9 [5] http://www.onemanga.com... Information can also be found in [1] in the first paragraph of the "Hunt for Itachi" section.
Atheistic Objective Morality

Challenge StatusThis debate challenge is for MagicAinReal. I will be sending the challenge to him on Monday. If anybody else accepts this debate then voters are obliged to vote for me as I did NOT give them permission to accept. ResolutionResolved: Assuming that God does not exist, morality can be objectiveRules 1 - No Kritiks2 - No semantics3 - The burden of proof is solely on Pro, meaning that only Pro needs to argue and Con (I) need(s) to refute their arguments to win. 4 - By accepting the debate you accept the definitions, rules and full resolution presented5 - The first round is NOT acceptance. Please post your arguments as you have the BOP. 6 - No source wars (you are allowed to critique sources but don't make that the focus of the debate)7 - No trolling8 - No forfeiture9 - No plagiarism10 - Failure to abide by the rules, definitions (below) and the full resolution means that all points will automatically be awarded in the person that didn't violate the rules' favor. Definitions Assuming: used for the purpose of argument to indicate a premise on which a statement can be based. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorityExist: have objective reality or being. Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts. Breaking down the ResolutionSo in essense, if we broke down the resolution it would be: For the purpose of [this] argument the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority doesn't have objective reality or being, [yet even in this scenario], principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior [can be] based on facts. Good luck in advance to MagicAintReal!
Atheistic Objective Morality

Thanks for the debate Con. While convention dictates that I forward this round, f*ck convention, because Con said I could respond. I do appreciate that Con instigated this debate, it's been fun and I really respect Con as a debater. That said. .. *Acknowledging The Resolution =/= Semantics*I'm not running semantics by repeating the resolution that "morality can be objective. "It doesn't say "morality should be objective" or "morality is always objective. "That auxiliary-infinitive verb phrase "can be" crucially modifies the claim, and pointing this out isn't semantics; it's observation. *Homeostasis =/= Normative*Con's been slingin' this term "normative" around the whole debate, and it's not been demonstrated that homeostasis is normative. Normative refers to behaviors of the "social norm" or the social standard of behavior. As I've pointed out in round 3 and still remains uncontested by Con, homeostasis is neither a behavior nor a social norm. Homeostasis isn't normative at all, and it is conceded to be objective by my opponent. Con asks:"Why is this normative ethical system of morality any better than any other normative ethical system of morality? "My response:Because there's nothing normative about homeostasis, as it's not a social norm or behavior, and nothing about the resolution says anything about "better;" the term used is "objective. "Something could be inferior and still be objective, but either way, all of your proposed systems consider well being-->homeostasis in some form or another, and this was emboldened by Con saying, "all of these do regard human well being,"*Can Be =/= Majority*I can be a lottery winner, I can be the first human on mars, I can be a body guard for a celebrity. .. these are all true statements yet their occurrence is not "achieved in the MAJORITY of situations. " There all rare, yet contain "can be" and are true. Well, morality can be objective, irrespective of majority. *My CONclusion*I'm just going to quote Con to conclude my affirmation of the resolution, "Morality Can Be Objective. "Con:"It is true that morality includes action towards others. .. my opponent"s normative ethical system does fit the definition of morality. "Con:"I must once again repeat that whilst the condition (homeostasis) is objective, the fact that *there are many objective ways of measuring morality*"Con:"Ultimately all Pro has proven is that homeostasis and suffering are objective standards of measuring morality. .. and therefore morality is objective. "Con:"I agree that homeostasis is an objective way of measuring morality. .. economic gain is also an objective unit of measurement to measure morality. "Con:"So far, all [Pro] has done is show that objective morality is possible. .. my opponent is requesting that voters vote for him since he has shown that morality can be objective. "Thanks Con.
i am original god of complete universe with proof of my DNA - first time on planet earth

All religions gods believe the universe is dream in reality and there is no original god and who wins from each other or any religions gods becomes original god which is lie because universe runs by the believe of original god and believe of original god is the property as everything and everyone and if original god changes then universe cannot run with same existing believe of existing original god which is everything and everyone and when existing original god changes his complete believe which are humans and spirits and everything of existing original god is property of existing original god which existing original god can claim at any time so property of new original god cannot be property of existing original god. Original god property is same in all the times past, current and future of same original god. A spirit will better understand what i mean through prove and win game played by spirits. Original god is same in past, current and future whether he is human or spirit or anything visible to everyone and his body will be universe if he is human where any spirits can check out by going out of sky or universe and they will come out from original god human body or spirit. There are few spirits who has become gods who knows who is original god and hides it from everyone by doing fabrication and putting original god in there spirit mind so they are not proven as lie. If they were real they would never need to win from original god to survive and live in the universe. Nobody can win from original god as he is same in past, current and future who is me and if anyone needs proof then they can find out by going out of sky of planets, or universe and see where they come out without fabrication or cheating done by spirits so they are not proven as lie and live. Those who still says there is always new god for all times is lie because were they own complete universe or just planet and if they didnt own complete universe then they were lie and just made god of planet. do you still believe i am lie and all religions gods are true ? are you being cheated by any spirit or any religions gods ? did you ever tried to find out truth.
i am original god of complete universe with proof of my DNA - first time on planet earth

I have watched the video that you posted of you being "The god of the complete universe", and this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I have taken a blood sample of myself and my DNA shows that I am actually the maker of the flat Earth. The mayans have written stories about how I will destroy the lizard people and Illuminati that controls this Earth. Saying that you are actually the god of the complete universe is literally the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. The DNA sequence of my body is totally unique and has the same patterns as the makeup of the flat Earth. I almost didn't even take this debate because of how ignorantly it was written. You have not been sourced with Breitbart or Buzzfeed so it is almost 100% wrong. I think this is Chinese propaganda to try to get us distracted from the real problems of the world. Anything you say from this point on is pretty much irrelevant because of me roasting your argument and debunking everything you have said.
Abortion

I apologize for forfeiting my last round. I didn't realize the time alloted for posting each round was so short."So are u agreeing with me that abortioncis morally wrong"Um, no. What gave you that idea? I took this debate, didn't I? I was merely using my first round for acceptance only as is the norm here. I was hoping you'd present your case, but it seems like you don't have much of one."abortioners deserves to burn for all eternity."This isn't an argument. It's an opinion one can only have if he/she already presupposes the truth of your position in this debate.Seeing as my opponent did literally nothing to defend his stance, I have nothing to refute. Next time, Cjnair, actually formulate some kind of argument, because as it stands, this was a waste of time to participate in and it would be a waste of time for anyone to read.