BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That allowing terminally ill patients to die when and how they choose is justified

Thank you for your timely response.My opponent has repeatedly said euthanasia but the resolution is a bit different it's whether terminally I'll patients have the right to kill themselves when and how they choose so I will assume when my opponent said euthanasia he meant that terminally I'll patients that attempt to kill themselves when and how they choose. the right to self preservation does not mean an obligation towards it; However, when people deliberately choose to give up this right they are also choosing to say the hell with the value of life (sanctity of life ) which is the foundation of all other values and should be held at value above all others because without life all tings that we value would be non-existent. Furthermore the burden of my opponent is to rebut/refute all of my points. "The primary flaw in my opponent's argument is that he has an incomplete picture of the pinnacle right to bodily integrity/personal liberty. He doesn't take into account that these rights-oriented principles are primarily concerned with the expression, practice, and respect of such rights IRRESPECTIVE of how people may do to themselves. The concept of personal liberty doesn't preclude people foolishly damaging their own bodies/wellbeing." Actually I know these right quite well you said it your self they are concerned with "expression, practice, and respect." If people hurt themselves or kill themselves it is an act an expression. The word preclude means 1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent. I'm not certain what my opponent meant but I agree with him that the concept of personal liberty does not preclude people foolish damaging their own body. finally my opponent makes an argument of rationality and irrationality how if people want to kill themselves they should be able to no matter their state of mind and how we can reach deliberation irrespective of their condition; However, that is not true people with terminal diseases always take into account their suffering and pain because of the disease that has stricken them, and if people those who have incurable diseases are irrational how will they be able to understand the meaning of consequence if they don't understand or don't remember what to decide something and live with it's implications means. For those who are reasonable and do understand the implications that they are ending their lives they will hurt the people around them and destroy the sanctity of life the right to bodily integrity does as I have said before Since the right to self-determination meas the right to self-preservation, it does not include a right to die. thank you.
Expert's Debate competition R1: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not

Resolution: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not DefinitionsSince quite frequently much of the debate regarding free will is centered around semantic disagreements, the definition for free-will will be broad and unspecific. The exact type of free will that my opponent will advance will become evident as he makes his case, but for now I will define free will as, "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives"[1].To exist: refers to free will existing in humans Rules & Setup Voters must provide adequate and thorough RFD's for each of the voting points they give to the participants. Otherwise they may be counter vote-bombed. R1: My opponent can either use this round simply for acceptance or he can post his case for free will in this round. It's up to him. If he uses this round for arguments he cannot use the last round for anything, however. The last round no new arguments are allowed. Note, if my opponent decides to use the first round for arguments, R3 is his last debating round. Good luck to my opponent.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Yo Momma Jokes Part 2- NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIUOSLY!

Yo momma so stupid, I told her drinks were on the house...so she went and got a ladder. Yo momma so fat, when she step on the weight scales it says...'to be continued'... Yo momma so poor, that when I saw her kicking a can down the road. I asked her what she was doing....'Moving' she replied.
Yo Momma Jokes Part 2- NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIUOSLY!

This is part 2 of Sky and myself's yo momma contest. But he said, that I OWNED HIM in the last one. So i need a new person. I will go first, yet again. In this part, you can post no more than 3 jokes. Yo momma so fat, she got Baptised at Sea World. Yo momma so stupid, she tried to alphabetise a bag of M&M's. Your momma so old, she owes Fred Flintstone a food stamp! Good luck!
We should not strike children as a form of punishment

Pro: "It isnt very constructive to invent once in a million year scenarios to derail moral rules." Con: http://zev.hubpages.com... Pro: "Even so, your incredibley unuseful example is one of self defense and not a case of punishment for some juvenile act." Con: *incredibly Pro: "This in itself is wrong because it teaches children that they too can exploit people throught the use of force/fear." Con: *through Pro: "Even if it is done in a "thoughtful manner" it can still have harmful spychological effects on the child." Con: *psychological Pro: "Not only are the mental and physical effects detremental but its use is largley contradictory." Con: *detrimental *largely
We should not strike children as a form of punishment

It isnt very constructive to invent once in a million year scenarios to derail moral rules. The point of this debate was to prove that a general rule is that we should not strike kids as a form of punishment. Even so, your incredibley unuseful example is one of self defense and not a case of punishment for some juvenile act. The basic idea is that when the parent uses striking or hitting to punish a child, the parent is using fear to get the child to behave in a certain way. They are holding fear against their children to make them do what they want. This in itself is wrong because it teaches children that they too can exploit people throught the use of force/fear. It teaches them that they can hurt others to obtain what they want. Children tend to pick up on the tendencies of those close to them, almost always being, the parents. Thus if the parents display violence toward the child in any sense, those tendencies will be picked up and will be fundemental to how the child acts in the future. Much of the time spanking is done out of anger and so is not done thoughtfuly or rationally. It is mostly a way to vent anger and to do so unto ones child is extremley terrible. Even if it is done in a "thoughtful manner" it can still have harmful spychological effects on the child. Children tend to be more reclusive, anti social, and resentful when they are spanked or hit at an early age. They are also more likley to spank their children later in life. Another effect is slower brain development. Not only are the mental and physical effects detremental but its use is largley contradictory. Many parents tell their kids not to hit or use force against others and then break this rule themselves. This can be confusing to the child and will falsify the moral rule the parent is trying to teach. I hope this indroduction will be properly adressed by my opponent. Thank you.Sources:http://www.themoneytimes.com... http://health.usnews.com...; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...; http://nospank.net...;
The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

Pro still fails to see my point, he addresses his own arguments and point of views as if they were facts. There is nothing determined or certain when it comes to such topic. You can not apply human logic on such divine entity. The fact that suffering exists in the world does not necessarily mean the absence of God. There is no concrete proof, they are all assumptions and possibility. Con can not prove that suffering dismisses the existence of God. I tried to counter his arguments by proposing other assumptions and possibilities but he still denies any other version of Gods but the one he has in mind. In my opinion, this kind of thinking shackles up our thoughts especially when we address a topic as this. I will not introduce any other arguments as agreed upon but in return I will list my points below: 1. God could co-exist with suffering 2. Suffering could exist with out God and still not be the reason for his existence. 3. An evil version of God, which is compatible with all the suffering in the world. These were my thoughts in a nutshell, no I have no sources and I will not cite anyone because regarding such there is no one what can be a reliable source of reasoning or logic but my own philosophy. I would like to criticize once more that Pro's entire argument is based upon someone else's idea or philosophy. He denies calling it plagiarism and still persists to accuse me of committing Straw man fallacy even though I believe I have done nothing of that sort. I beg him well in his future debates, and if he in fact loses in this debate. I wish that learns from his mistake. Thank you.
The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

First of all I would like to apologize for my inconvenience regarding the last round. However I had some issues that had to be taken care of regardless. I am still willing to continue this debate. I see that my opponent has offered us with a respectable counter argument. The only problem is that it does not make much sense. He first denied plagiarism when his entire argument based on one Oscar Razor's, he denies plagiarism even though he keeps quoting the man. Despite the fact that his entire argument is based on someone's else argument he still live in denial. Just because you mention the sources of your information does not give you the right to build an entire argument based on someone Else's words. These are not proof or evidence or any sort they do not enhance your position, you are just defending what someone Else's argument. I will not debate this any longer as it is but sub-text, I will leave it for the audience to decide. And then he accuses me of committing a logical fallacy called the 'Straw man' I think he elaborated the term quite well. The only fact is that I did not commit this fallacy, observe. " Opponent is arguing the fact that God does not exist because there is suffering in the world." & " If you are trying to prove that God does not exist because there is no interference from his end into our human realm..." Those were my words, then he used such quotations as; "Take pretty much any instance of suffering. A child tortured, animals eating each other alive, an earthquake causing bricks to fall on people. Every bone broken, every rib cracked, every person blinded every spine severed can be made compatible with the claim that God allowed these things to happen, as per (P1)" How is my argument not compatible with his claim? It seems like it addresses the problem quite accurately and thus, there was no fallacy committed from my behalf. Pro persists that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent personal being. But he does not know that, he can not disprove that God could be evil. However he chooses to build his entire argument upon something that may not be true. If God is evil then it would still be possible for suffering and God to co-exist in the same realm/universe. Pro has no evidence to dismiss my assumption. What if God is not interfering? But then again lets take Pros version of God. An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent personal being. What if that is in fact true, and he is no evil being. Pro argues and says that since there are suffering in the world (P1) therefore God can not exist (P2) What if God chooses to watch us? Just because God does not interfere does not mean he does not exist. And you can not prove that. For all you know, God can be watching us handle our own matter and chooses not to interfere. Perhaps he would like to see how us Humans will survive? Otherwise, why would he have created us if he was going to help us with every trouble we face. If all of this is a test, then there is no reason for our watcher to aid us within this test. The last point will be discussed in the last round. Thank you.
The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

Possibly with a positive out come. But before I proceed I would like to note that my opponent has not introduced his own argument but rather provided me with argument of others and that in itself is a bit confusion because when I joined this debate I was under the impression that I was going to argue against my opponent's thoughts and arguments and not of others? If I am not mistaken half of his argument if not two-third of it is solely based on someone's else argument. And could easily be convicted of plagiarism. Regardless I will point out my own arguments first which oppose the ones he provided. Opponent is arguing the fact that God does not exist because there is suffering in the world. This argument is invalid, or may have a paradox in itself. Allow me to elaborate through the next few points:1. What if God is Evil?2. What if God is not interfering?3. What if God does not exist? I will not argue all of them at once, in fact I will introduce those arguments within the following rounds. Firstly, I am not impressed by those arguments, not one bit. Because just like those individuals I have my own reasoning to rationalize my own interpretation of the world. They do not provide the absolute truth. The fact that you chose to introduce other people's arguments within such matters suggest that you think of them as more intellectual beings, and in return we must entertain the fact that they might actually be right. No one holds the absolute truth when it comes to such matter. Anyone could rationalize their own thoughts and would still oppose their ideas with ease. Yet I can not deny that those arguments come from a logical prospective, yet I think otherwise. What if God is Evil? Even though I do not entertain this theory for personal reasons, it is a thought none the less. If God is truly evil, there would be a valid explanation for the suffering and continuous plagues that roam the earth without divine interference. What if God finds pleasure in watching us suffer somehow, or perhaps this is all for an entertaining course. The point would still be that God does exist and that suffering/pain are not good enough reasons to deny the existence of God. If you are trying to prove that God does not exist because there is no interference from his end into our human realm, then you will need more than just that to prove your point, I look forward to the next round and hopefully a more promising argument. Thank you.
The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

The DebateAlthough I have titled this debate the problem of evil, more exactly I believe that this should be called the problem of unnecessary suffering. I will provide argument to justify the claim that it is more plausible that God does not exist with a focus on suffering. Con will seek to negate my arguments. DefinitionsGod - An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being. Unnecessary suffering - suffering which was not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
F*CK feminism!

Basic Definitions:Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.(1) feminism: noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women(2). Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.(3) More detailed description & variety:Feminist activists campaign for women's rights – such as in contract law, property, and voting – while also promoting bodily integrity, autonomy, and reproductive rights for women. Feminist campaigns have changed societies, particularly in the West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property.[7][8] Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.[9][10][11] They have also advocated for workplace rights, including maternity leave, and against forms of discrimination against women.[7][8][12]Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality,bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.[13] (1)Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. However, there are many different kinds of feminism. Feminists disagree about what sexism consists in, and what exactly ought to be done about it; they disagree about what it means to be a woman or a man and what social and political implications gender has or should have. Nonetheless, motivated by the quest for social justice, feminist inquiry provides a wide range of perspectives on social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena. Important topics for feminist theory and politics include: the body, class and work, disability, the family, globalization, human rights, popular culture, race and racism, reproduction, science, the self, sex work, human trafficking, and sexuality. (4) I await my opponents arguments.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(4) http://plato.stanford.edu...;
Jewishness is both a race and a religion.

Conozco a una muchacha guapa que es la mas bonita de la escuela. Todos los estudiantes se burlan de ella porque se llama Fea. Asi que Fea se queda en casa todos los dias. Los estudiantes maltratan a otro estudiante tambien. Es el mas inteligente de la clase. Todos los estudiantes se burlan de el porque se llama Tonto. Los dos, Tonto y Fea, se quedan en casa todos los dias. Un dia, Fea va al supermercado para comprar espinacas porque a ella le encantan las espinacas. Tonto va al supermercado para comprar peras. A el no le gustan los vegetales, especialmente las espinacas. En el supermercado, Fea conoce a Tonto y le dice: "Hola, yo soy Fea". -Tonto le responde: "Senorita, tu no eres fea".-Fea le responde a el: "Si, soy Fea, y por eso me quedo en casa todos los dias".
part III: Goku's cookie disaster

After destroying the aardvarks, Honey Badgers revives them to revolt against the tyranny that is Goku, but really Honey Badger is simply in love with Goku, who's in love with Rainbow Dash who's in love with Honey Badger, making a complicated love circle, when they both realize Goku's a cheater with Britney Spears, Honey Badger and Rainbow Dash attempt to attack Goku who dodges it, outnumbered he uses supersonic speed to save Slenderman from burning in the sun, so a death match with Rainbow Dash and Honey Badger versus Goku and Slenderman, and as they are preparing for battle, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan smash into the ground between the four super beings, while pulling each other's hair when suddenly...
part III: Goku's cookie disaster

White blank face when suddenly bananas are thrown from everywhere by a bunch of aardvarks who are leading a revolt against long yellow hair which Goku has, so Goku powers up to super sayan 4 and destroys every aardvark, while Slenderman is being cuddled, which Rainbow Dash finds annoying, so she sends them off to the sun, where they never are heard from again, so..
part III: Goku's cookie disaster

Food to cook for Rainbow Dash, which made Rainbow Dash so mad that she started shooting deadly lasers at Goku, while screaming many obscenities at him and exclaiming that Honey Badger was her true love, meanwhile Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears were having a half fistfight half hair pulling fest over Slenderman, because they were so transfixed by his...
part III: Goku's cookie disaster

A new group of flying aardvarks float from the sinkhole, and promptly made everyone barf up their food so the sinkhole would stop growing, and shockingly enough it worked, but when The Old Spice Guy, his Crazy Son, Captain Morgan, Britney Spears, Lindsay Logan, and Bear Grylls tried to greet and thank the aardvarks they said that "the world shall be the flying aardvarks" and gulped up every living thing on Earth with the only survivors being Rainbow Dash, Honey Badger, and Slenderman, who managed to obliterate most of the aardvarks, however they were simply too exhausted to fight any longer, when they remembered the strongest of them all, Fran Drescher, who managed to annoy all the aardvarks with her annoying voice to go back into the sinkhole, thus saving the Earth, and when Fran asked if she would get anything in return Rainbow Dash destroyed her with her laser eyes and Slenderman revived all humans but was quickly killed by terrified soldiers with guns, and after killing and becoming power hungry, the soldiers shot into the ground so much that the Earth split in half and exploded destroying all things as we know it and creating a new universe, thus ending all continue the debate sentences between Complicated_Mind and Birdlandmemories for at least a week, and preferably for longer!
part III: Goku's cookie disaster

Bear Grylls appears so does the old spice guy and his crazy son, except they grew toupes and mustaches that when down to their knees, which made everyone, even honey badger laugh, massive food rights and cannons emerged, blowing stuff backwards, then Captain Morgan emerges with his pirate crew and eat meatballs until they all gained so much weight, it caused a sinkhole larger than California which...
The United States should regulate trade.

This debate is about free trade. Free trade is a policy where the government doesn't regulate imports via tariffs or exports via subsidies. Instead, prices are determined solely by supply and demand. I will argue against free trade and Con will argue for. There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

Hello, I am a public forum debater that decided to take on a Lincoln Douglas topic. Remember that Lincoln Douglas is about morality and acceptance in society so don't count on little tubs of evidence to win. :) Accept if you want a good debate about morality. Best of luck and may the best debater win. Think about this scenario - a terrorist wants to bomb a building. He prepares the bomb puts it inside and makes a detonator which he is running with( because let's say you are a police man and you caught him. ) He tosses he detonator in the bushes and runs away. Suddenly a little boy walks up and starts playing with it trying to push the button. There are 200 people inside the building. Is it rightfully moral and just to shoot the little boy to save the 200 people? Yes, it is. Think about it if you're the policeman. Its a very difficult decision to make but you haven't got much time and there are 200 people inside that building. One life against 200. This is acceptable because we must think of the greater good. If you shoot the little boy you will be saving 200 lives. People with families. Yes, it would be tragedy for the family of this boy, but how much more of a tragedy if 200 others are dead.