BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind

First notice how I didnt only say that the media was the problem. But you are right that we should stop using the media as an excuse for our problem. You also make excellence point when you said that children are influenced by other factors like things in life. But if you had put examples to show what factors make a child violent . What I am saying is you stated your claim but not your evidence to support it which would have made the claim stronger. But like the point I made in round 3 that sometime it is not the parents fault , it could because of another family members. Or the environment is another factor that can make a child turn violent. But I have to disagree with you that humans blame other factors instead of themselves. Some humans held their actions accountable and would admit to making a mistake. Some people worry that friend, kid or someone 's child will not turn or grow up right they want too. It just that other humans care about their pride more than the actually situation. But it is going to take a major thing to make them realize or for them to tell to someone .
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

I would state no that Laura should not be allowed to kill herself There are many reasons why we should not let people allow themselves to just die unless they have a condition that is untreatable and they cannot live with it Ive given you many reasons above why life can improve but they just need time But ill state my secondary reason as well We as a society cannot condone or encourage the act of death. Death is wrong and should not be looked at with ease or even a way out Doing that will cause more deaths in the US that could've have been prevented.
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

The person should be able to decide upon that, not an arbitrary person. Death is sleep, and it is just another way in which you can go about your life. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. Let's state Laura from Belgium as an example. She was an Belgian woman who was given admission to be euthanized after suffering from depression from her childhood. The con side is arguing that Laura should not have had the choice to decide on her fate because she was just feeling bad about their current predicament. Her depression may have been treatable, but it was her to decide upon that, not other people. One should be able to decide how to treat oneself, and viewing death as absolutely negative is not rational. It's a choice you can make. You will lost consciousness forever. There is nothing immoral or bad about that.
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

Pro basically states that killing themselves is a right way out of depression Its not And while you say take extra precautions and say there should be counseling doesn't mean anything if the person is set on the path to kill themselves Depression is treatable and killing yourself or having someone kill you is not the way to treat yourself The last thing we need to do is encourage the act of killing oneself because they feel bad about themselves in their current predictment
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

It is foolish to assume that life will get magically better for everyone. One should have the freedom to decide rationally on that, and it is only rational that the government assist one's decision on that. For example, euthanasia should be available to people with none-lethal disease. If the person decides that the disease will make his life miserable even though it will not take his life, then that person should have the right to access euthanasia. Of course, there can be miracles, but whether future will be better or not should be decided by the person himself. We should not impose our belief that life will magically get better. It may, but it may not. For people with depression, yes, their ability to decide rationally may be disturbed. In this case, extra caution would be very necessary, but the basic premise does not change. We should not be judging that everyone's life will certainly get better on every case. It is up to the person himself to decide that.
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

Yes I understand your argument that it should not be offered as a can of coke. However that's what will happen. Many sucide attemptee do not seek/ will NOT listen to medical advice and will NOT listen to their family. I thought I already talked about this with a real life story of one of my teachers. The LAST thing the government needs to administer are death options. The Death penalty is already cruel enough we do not need to give people the option to die if they do not have any painful/ physical problems. Like I said the main cause of suicide is spiked depression. The victim will shut her/himself to outside contact and become a shell and seek a way out.... Many times people just commit suicide to cope with that depression. Also again no qualms about administering asked euthanasia for people with painful tragedies that have no cure. Instead of encouraging euthanisa or the EASY way out we need to encourage rehabilitation. Right now all I hear from you is that they get counseling and lots of time.... but if you don't actually take care of the problem that's all going to be for nothing and they will just choose the euthanasia option. Lots of suicides are prevented by informing the authority and having that person take medical drugs or be in mental hosptals If the euthanasia option was available for that teacher he would've done it. He would have. He wouldn't have his happy life. He wouldn't have his new job or his new wife or his new kid. None of that. Because he took the easy way out
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

I have addressed your point in my previous argument. " I am not stating that everyone will have easy access to euthanasia like they have access to a can of Coke. There must be counselling, talking with the families, and a lot of time to reconsider the decision. This is important because the individual cannot be making this decision because of treatable mental health issue or a sudden whim of emotion. This must be a rational decision based on their conviction about life." No one should commit suicide based on whims. You are absolutely right. However, if the person has not changed his mind after all the effort available, it would be merciful for us to offer a painless solution, rather than forcing him to get hit by a bus. Actually, allowing this on governmental level will help theses people. Since government will offer these people a painless solution to die, this will make many people to apply for euthanasia. However, these people must get help before such a thing can happen as I have stated. In many cases, suicide is the result of not reaching out. If euthanasia can be given after all the effort has been done, many will actually stop considering euthanasia like in your case. Few will still decide to go with euthanasia, in which case they will die painless death.
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

I would say no. While you do mention that there needs to be time for counesling we have to understand that sometimes that person isn't capable/refuses to be rehabilited. While I do agree in some cases of euthanasia your argument isn't about it being used in some cases. Your saying it should be available for EVERYONE. So that means children and the mentally disturbed. Killing is not the remedy unless the person is in physical pain that cannot be cured and he will suffer forever. People who commit suicide, in most cases, are not thinking straight and through difficulty and hardships they decide not to commit suicide. Ill give you an example. There was a man who wanted to commit suicide because his wife was cheating on him. He wanted to commit sucide. But one of their relatives turned him into the police and he went into a mental hospital. That man cursed and cursed and said how he was suffering and how he was going to kill himself when he got the chance. However after multiple weeks of solitude and constant counseling.... he got better. He is now married, has a kid, and got a promotion. Catering to people whims is not always in that person's best interest.....especially if they want to commit suicide
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

My position is that euthanasia should be available to anyone who wishes to kill themselves. I am not stating that everyone will have easy access to euthanasia like they have access to a can of Coke. There must be counselling, talking with the families, and a lot of time to reconsider the decision. This is important because the individual cannot be making this decision because of treatable mental health issue or a sudden whim of emotion. This must be a rational decision based on their conviction about life. Humans are just randomly thrown into life. If life is forced upon humans, should not humans have freedom to dispose of it freely? For example, let's say that gift that a person does not like is forcefully given to the person. The person should have the freedom to dispose of the gift, since the person does not like the gift and was given of gift against his will. The fact that it was given does not make it necessity that the person should appreciate it. And it is obvious that there is a point where life will not worth the existence. If a person finds meaningless and has considerable evidence that life will continue that way, life is simply not worth the existence. It is cruel that such a existence must continue. Death is something that all humans must go through. If a person decides that he wants to go through it early, there should be no stopping of it. Suicide by hanging, shooting, or any other methods are susceptible to failed attempts and can be really painful. Allowing euthanasia for everyone who wants it will allow them to die painlessly and peacefully.
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

It isn't that I don't feel anything for Laura It is because that if you allow this behavior, sucidies will go up tremendously I understand Laura's situation but death should NEVER be the answer Literally try anything else but practically killing yourself? No. There are many methods of treatments for depression (Psychology, Meds, Counseling with Family) Death shouldn't be one of those methods Basic summary: Euthansia should never be allowed because it would cause a snowball reaction of tremendous suicide rates, There are many other methods for dealing with depression like psychology, meds, Counseling with Family Vote Reformist!
Euthanasia should be available to everyone who is considering suicide.

What you are saying is that even though Laura was suffering from great misery from her childhood, tried everything she could, but still should be forced to live because some people live in a fairyland where things will somehow magically get better. She suffered her whole life, for more than 20 years. You are stating that she should live more torturous life because she may have some chance to get better. That is absurd, since it may just not. There is no certainty in life, and it should be up to the person to decide to take a gamble or choose a safe way out of the torturous misery. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Death is not necessary wrong. Death is a loss of consciousness. It's as same as sleeping, but death just lasts forever. Death is death. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
The United States Government should have a mandatory military draft for all its citizens

It was established long ago that a draft was not to be used except in cases of extreme crisis because America was established by free men that chose to fight for a cause they believed in. Take the Iraq war for example, at first people completely supportive of the presidents decision to invade but upon return from their deployment the majority of servicemen had a change of mind on the war. The suicide rate following the return from that war was substantially higher than any before it. Support for the war had been lost. We launched a preemptive strike on a country that had made no aggressive move towards the US. In a situation where the people do not agree with the war being waged they should have a right to choose whether or not the wish to become involved. Now if an enemy were to invade our shores for example that would be a different matter entirely. If a mandatory draft were implemented it would take away Americans right to decide for themselves. It is true that if such a draft were used we would have a more capable society in desperate times but again it comes down to our freedom to choose.
The United States Government should have a mandatory military draft for all its citizens

! There is no reason why, men of all ages and races should not be obliged to serve there country in times of war and in hypothetical wartime preparation. By implementing the mandatory military service draft ideally, would lead to a more available and consistent supply of military personnel , that will be capable of being deployed to a conflict zone in a moment's notice. Furthermore it may increase civic participation in the understanding the role the U. S. Plays in the global arena and produce more civic participation in our country's political affairs (especially when dealing with military budgets in congress) Volunteer service, though personally, does produce determined and loyal soldiers;though it may be unreliable as it depends on willingness of the individual; and sense of loyalty to ones country. By creating a steady flow of supply for the military, especially the Army and Marine Corp. in recent years, from redeploying troops that are not ready for active duty. From the results of the Israeli ideal of mandatory military service it has proven to proven its ability to assimilate hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and youth from poor development towns and development of its citizens not only mentally but also physically. No enemy foreign or even domestically would even think of threatening us if every man, woman and child in our nation knew how to fight and react to a real combat situation-thus enforcing and creating a new generation of citizens; those who are loyal and stand a fighting chance even in times when we are unprepared. Sources: . https://www.cypanthers.org... . http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org... . http://www.usnews.com...
Rock music in church (Christian)

ok one thing. God is god, he created the earth, so if people worship him with rock music or Reggae or what ever does it matter? He loves everyone, either christian or not so if they sing rock or not he would not think of it as a bad thing. Also god created rock, so i think he would expect people to sing rock music or what ever. Like i said before, you do not have to go to a church with rock music, it's your choice. oh and by any chance are you a Jehova's Witness tpye person? Just asking.
Rock music in church (Christian)

Yes I am a Christian, I have dedicated my life to Jesus when i was about 7 years old. Over the past couple of years i have been going to many churches, meeting new people, listening to the pastor preach, singing, and one thing that always stayed the same, worshiping god. Me moving around different churches with my mother i have worshiped god in many different ways.We sang rap, fiesta type music, rock, hip-hop and many more. Now when it comes down you don't even need music to worship god. You can pray to god thanking him, reading your bible to know more about him, and depending on your heart giving your tithes and offerings is also another sign of worshiping. Yes many may consider music is just human beings be foolish or not being a necessity but think about it this way, music is a way to liven up church, to help bring more people to god. I can say from experience music for me in church is what makes church so wonderful, i can learn things, i can worship and get closer with god it's just amazing. So no matter what type of music it is rock, hip-hop, or reggae music should be allowed in church,even it's rock. Aswell, you don't have to go to a church with rock music trust me. You can go to a Catholic church. (from where I've been too theres been no rock music).
Rock music in church (Christian)

Hello reader. -My request is for the challenger to be a christian- Worldly people are attracted to there own. You who are rich so will you gather many of the same, and those people that the Lord has set apart in this time will also be gathered together. But even when people find shelter under the church they cannot accept unless they have recived the true words which are without defect. Those words are from the Holy Spirit. Not all who call to the Lord will find the fire which will give warmth in this stormy time, and those who have be called, few will accept the true doctirne. How few will be allowed into Gods throne (which is there choice) if many rooted christians fall away, so how many of those who have not truely been saved will be left? That which comes from our mouth speaks of our heart. If we are to confees that our church is holy and set apart from the world, which is the meaning of holyness-to be seperate onto God. Then how can we say we glorify God with our praise and worship? If we change our way of praising the Lord so more worldly people enter our church then isnt it not for the Lord? Rather it is for people that we praise then? We are to trust God, it is better to have ten then ten thousand attending. Many turn away when the Lord said "you must drink of my blood and eat my fleash." If they turned away because of one truth spoken to them, then how many will leave the church when many truths are given. We trust in the Lord that our bills are paid, after all if the Lord placed them as Leaders then surely He will look after them? Paul said "all things to me are profitable, but without Christ I consider all thing worthless." If so then we may praise as we with how ever we like, but if the Lord is not involved then its considered worthless in the eyes of Paul and many others. We should not allow people we become offened to hinder the true words of the Lord. [that is to say we still respect people] but to allow people to hinder us, we should not allow this. If many people leave from hearing a truth, then they leave hearing the truth. How can we allow lack of numbers in our church to change the way we worship, which true worship requires not music at all. But it is used and a carrier, which is not needed anyway, but maybe used.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxy-moron

Okay, I'll explain how anarcho-capitalism is an oxy-moron. To best get an idea on what anarchism is, we must first turn to the very first anarchists. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one such anarchist thinker, defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." ( What is Property p. 264) To quote L. Susan Brown, who is a modern anarchist, "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." (The Politics of Individualism, p. 106) Both of these definitions are consistent. On one hand, it is argued to be without a master or a sovereign, on the other it is said to be anti-hierarchical. Hierarchy naturally has sovereigns. Capitalism, in and of itself, is hierarchical. You have, on one end, the capitalist business owners, and on the other, the workers. One of capitalism's prime characteristics, is to have private property and private ownership of the means of production. When a few people own the means of production, this naturally puts them above us in hierarchy, as we are dependent upon them to give us a wage or a means by which we can live. The capitalist business owner controls a part of our lives, as they set the rules for the company all without consent of the workers there. Before I get side-tracked, the fact that capitalism is hierarchical, means it is incompatible with anarchism, which seeks to end all forms of hierarchy, or as Proudhon said to have "the absence of a master, of a sovereign". Capitalist business owners are clearly our sovereigns, as they control what we buy, they control the means of production, they control how we act, etc. In addition, capitalism cannot naturally exist without the state as an aid. because the state is the one which enforces private property rights. If you got rid of the state, there would be no one to protect your private property, and capitalism would then cease to exist as people and workers would take over the means of production and private property.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxy-moron

My opponent said "the community does not have the right to sue the company, since they haven't violated any rights before the explosion." However, if the company didn't inform the citizens of that community in some way that they were producing atomic energy and that there is a chance for an explosion to occur, then there is grounds for suing. How else are the people in that community supposed to have known that there were dangerous substances being produced nearby? They may have chosen not to have lived there to begin with had they have known. If they did know about it, and chose to live there anyways, then I would say there is not a grounds for suing. Anyways, this seems to be an irrelevant discussion and side tracks from the debate. Did you have something you wanted to argue for why anarcho-capitalism isn't an oxy-moron? You still have yet to address my previous argument.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxy-moron

The idea seems pretty utopic to me, but I may very well be wrong. Let's say a business opens a factory right next to the community. They have legitimately bought the land and have not violated any property rights. They begin producing atomic energy and there's a 10% chance (over-dramatized of course) a reactor would explode and if it did, there would be vast property damage and lifes lost in the community. The community does not have the right to sue the company, since they haven't violated any rights before the explosion. So how would this be fixed? Would be great if you'd provide practical solutions. Seems to be that the practical reality stands above morality in some ways? No hate please, I am just trying to learn and get familiar with the idea. Thanks :)
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

1. Assuming that we, an imaginary third person, could accurately measure intelligence, we would break down society into 3 groups of equal size. These group will be called smart, average and stupid. Therefore, a stupid person ranks under the 34th percentile in this our view. To accurately guess the range of one intelligence level, one must be able to judge one self in comparison to others. And to judge the arguments and comments of others one must be able to understand them. This is because, despite the verbiage of some speaks or writers, there arguments could carry little to no substance. Therefore, those who appear smart may not necessarily be smart. So simply because a person does not understand what other people are saying does not mean that he is stupid as he could merely be average. It could also mean that the arguments: 1. have been said to quickly. 2. carry to many words that the listener does not know (they could be too technical) 3. are vague and too abstract 4. they contain to many unnecessary and therefore distracting words 5. they are illogical To measure one intelligence one would have to see through this and therefore I conclude that a stupid person could not do so.