BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

First of all I would like to disagree on the facts on what my opponent is saying. Basically that its okay to die, now don't get me wrong yes to some degree you should do something to save a person's life. Like give more medication or discuss the pro's and con's of a situation, not end it. By doing that your giving up that person or animal right to live. Case in point for example if someone were pregnant and gotten an abortion don't you think that the fetus, has the right to live. But that would be a different debate on why a baby should live, so how is this much different. Just like you have a right as a human being to vote, would you want someone to take your rights away from you. A man name Jacob Kevorkian is famous for the vicious acts a pond humans witch you brought up Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian born May 26, 1928 is an Armenian-American pathologist, right-to-die activist, painter, composer, and instrumentalist. He is best known for publicly championing a terminal patients right to die via physician-assisted suicide; he claims to have assisted at least 130 patients to that end. He famously said that "dying is not a crime. its also not a choice, Beginning in 1999 Kevorkian served eight years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder. He was released on parole on June 1, 2007, on condition that he would not offer suicide advice to any other person. There was a statement that my opponent used stating that patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained ,so I ask you cannot be sustained or cant be tolerated. European declaration of human rights not to be forced to suffer. so if I wanted to hang myself would that be right it still means the same thing ,just that the person who is suffering actually is doing the wrongful crime of killing them self. But in the bible it clearly states in exodus 20:13 you shall not murder. And also my opponent mentioned a women named Chantal sebire a 52 year old women who wanted to die around her family, friends and doctors you cant judge one person decision and pin it on the rest of the society, like if one person eats fried chicken doesn't mean we all do. But since you talk so much about the pro's in your debate ,lets talk about the con's .Chantal wanted to die in in peace in front of family doctors and etc.. But don't you think doctors had a little bit to do with her decision. That lady had kids who need her as a provider ,a role model and if you were to put your self in there shoes this debate would be relevant. And also Terri shiavo's death was to remove her feeding tubes she was starved to death is that dying with dignity.
Global Warming

Resolved: Man-made influences on global warming are significantThank you for agreeing to debate this with me. I look forward to a productive debate. DefinitionsGlobal Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. This is a type of greenhouse effect. "Man-made" is man's overall influence on the global temperature and climate."significant" is defined as 51% or more.StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and closingGood luck!
the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

"both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion." This means you want to heavily regulate the third trimester of pregnancy as a precaution, to make sure women in their third trimester do not get abortions. I took a reverse stance saying that we should instead regulates the PLACES where abortions take place instead of the actual people. My argument is, and I repeat, that monitoring all women in their third trimester is unrealistic. Although I agree that it should be done, there are many drawbacks. First of all, a woman in her third trimester has been pregnant for the other 7 or so months anyway, so we would have to start monitoring them from the beginning. The percentage of women who will consider abortion in the third trimester is extremely low. If they wanted an abortion, they would have gotten it earlier. Instead of heavily regulating THE THIRD TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY in general, as you have stated in your arguments and in the topic title itself, I propose we monitor the abortion CLINICS. My reasoning is as follows: Women who want abortions go to abortion clinics. There, a doctor can assess whether or not an abortion can be performed. If the woman is clearly in her third trimester, the doctor has an option to inform the state and opt out of performing the abortion. Instead of keeping a file on every woman who gets pregnant, we can just deal with the problem once it occurs.
the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

My concern is with the way you stated your argument. You state that the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion. I can only assume that this means some sort of regulatory measures taken for all women who are in their third trimester. I find this to be unnecessary and wasteful of resources. Instead of regulating something as general as the third trimester of pregnancy (which would apply to mothers who are and are not considering abortion) you should limit the regulation purely to women looking to abort their child. In other words, instead of monitoring/regulated all women in the third trimester, we should just regulate and monitor all abortion clinics.
the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

so by regulating the abortion clinics, we're regulating woman's access to abortion. your idea would have the same effect as regulating abortions as i said, wouldn't it... i don't see your distinction? also.. if we makes exceptions for things like the health of the mother, as i said above, then we don't have to worry too much about harming her. now, we might quibble over whether she should have access, say if her parents will disown her and make her destitute... cause i don't think her desititution justifies killing the baby that she conceived and brought to third trimester. and allowing for hte mother and a few other exceptions doesn't mean we don't heavily regulate the mother? we might just be seeing past each other. and need clarification. how exactly do you think we're harming the mother?
the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

I disagree. There are many, many, MANY more women in the third trimester who want the baby as opposed to women in the third trimester who DON'T want the baby. The third trimester of pregnancy should not be heavily regulated because all the happy, anxious mothers would have that important stage of their lives ruined by whatever heavy regulations you want to impose. I believe that instead of regulating the third trimester of pregnancy, we should regulate abortion clinics.
the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion. legally.... roe v wade allows regulation, but doe v. bolton in practice has effectively render void that legislative option. "Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." not because that case is bad law, but because it's being applied too liberally. so, to keep with the snpirit of roe v wade, legally, more regulations should exist in the third trimester. also, morally... only things like the health of the mother should allow abortions. maybe a little leniency on some other things, but not much. this is obvious... it's not a baby two seconds out of the birth canal but a baby two seconds before, and murder doesn't happen only out of the birth canal. this is not debatable, to rational people. so, rationally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated.
Religious Criticism

Greeting fellow brother in Christ, I've been in your position many, many times. As devout Christians, we rarely meet like-minded people as ourselves aside from church. I think Christianity and the Bible are often slandered and insulted because it is the truth. Most people hate medicine but it is only those who want to get healed that will take it. In the same way, most people will hate us because we are Christians. Don't worry, this is completely normal. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself stated we would go through suffering for His sake. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matthew 10:22) (NIV) "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. (Matthew 5:11) (NIV) It can sometimes be very frustrating when people openly insult God. It's okay. They crucified Him, don't be surprised when they mock His name. My advice to you brother is keep spreading the truth and never be ashamed of witnessing for Christ. Jesus said whoever denies Him beforehand men, He will deny before the Father. So whenever you're insulted for your faith, just know the hosts of heaven are rejoicing at your blessings and salvation.
The french horn is a the hardest instrument in band to play.

Your debate title stated "The French horn is the hardest instrument in band to play". You have given me no proof that this is so, save yourself saying you could learn to play flute in half the time. All that proves is that YOU can learn the flute faster than YOU can learn the French horn. You also didn't specify at what time the French horn would be the hardest instrument to play. It could be at any given time. Therefore if one was to be a master at the French horn then they would not believe the French horn is the hardest instrument to play. Finally my embouchure point is still quite valid. Certain embouchures are easier to replicate than others. For example a flute embouchure is quite different than a clarinet embouchure. However a tuba embouchure isn't much different than a French horn embouchure. Your statement can not be correct as you have a lack of information and your point is quite broad.
The french horn is a the hardest instrument in band to play.

It is scientifically proven somewhere on this Earth that the french horn is the hardest to learn and play. I could learn to play a flute in half the time it would take to learn to play a french horn. If you actually tried to play the french horn it would take you about a year of practicing every day to reach a high school level. The clarinet or flute or any of the other instruments can be learned to play relatively easier than the french horn. That is my debate.
The french horn is a the hardest instrument in band to play.

Your statement was "The French horn is the hardest instrument in band to play". I, as con am asked to prove why it's not. I don't necessarily have to prove that there is harder instrument. I will get more into the actual debate in after a few rules have been established as you have posted no rules. Firstly I believe we must cite all sources. Secondly forfeiture is not allowed unless you have a "really good" excuse to back it up. (Weather it's a good excuse or not will be judged by the other debater) Now I will get into my debate. I will start on the first round as you have also. Hard, in this sense means difficult. If I can refer to "hard" as most difficult I believe this will be significantly easier. Difficult - hard to do, make, or carry out This is the Merriam Webster"s definition on difficult. When something is the most difficult it is the most hard to do, make, or carry out. However this is for a singular being. If I was to start my musical career with the French horn and got used to having a small mouthpiece, tuning and playing both high and low notes I may find another instrument quite difficult. Furthermore I have come to know that certain instruments have certain embouchures (the position your mouth makes when playing an instrument). I personally play the clarinet with a certain embouchure. However earlier in the year I have tried playing a flute and it was quite difficult for me. But to a flute player it was quite an easy experience. This was because of the embouchure. These are the reasons why I believe that the French horn is not the hardest instrument to play. Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The french horn is a the hardest instrument in band to play.

I believe that the French Horn is the hardest instrument to play in band. First let us speak of the brass section. The French Horn has the smallest mouthpiece in the brass section. Second let us speak of woodwinds. Woodwinds do not have to move their lips to tune to the other instruments while the French Horn has to tune to every instrument its part accompanies.(Usually the French Horn is a middle man meaning it plays along with another part). Third let us speak of the percussion. While they do have to play complicated rhythms the French Horn plays complicated rhythms along with going from the lowest to the highest notes for its range of notes. If con can prove that their is a harder instrument to play than the french horn than he/she wins. Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

I, too, understand why you believe this system would work. You gave an example of Britain where a similar system works very well. Though, there are examples of why this system would not work. Let's look at our county's government again. When Obama-care first was proposed, they was some arguing and of course disagreement. Because it is split between Republicans and Democrats, one would expect the Republicans to rebuttal the idea. However, even though the Democrats are on Obama's "side", many now have deviated and are now against his ideas. The point of that "real-life" example is to show that even when the political parties match, there will still not be a smooth process to pass a bill or get work done. One should not expect the Democrats to follow the Democrat President without any objection, nor should one call them renegades for going against him. Lastly, when a Congressman chooses his/her political party, Republican or Democrat, that does not mean that they have to follow the strict characteristics of a Democrat. One may be a Republican, but still support the ideas of a Democratic President. Thus, we cannot expect them to simply pass a bill and work together because that implies that they don't have a voice of their own. In addition, think about that system. It would seemingly turn into a form of an "dictatorship". Not the kind people associate Louis XIV with, but rather, it would be a one party-ed run Congress where the majority blindly agree with the President and they together could pass whatever bill they want. In conclusion, this system would not work. It may seem like a nice idea in one's thoughts, but, if executed, it would be a disaster. People would still not agree nor would any work get done faster. If there was total agreement, then this system could effectively turn the the President into a "monarch" who has the support of a "Parliament" by him. For these reasons, the system proposed by the Pro would not be plausible and would indeed not work.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

I see where you are coming from.. but I still strongly agree that this plan system would benefit the United States greatly. I mean look at Britain, you rarely hear of political problems because the Prime Minister is selected to be the same political party as the majority party in Parliament, this leads to more legislation be passed. So if we had Congress elect our President, then the majority party in Congress, lets say Republican, would elect a Republican President. This would likely cause more legislation to be passed because both the President and Congress would be the same political party. In your argument about officials saying they will do something, lets say legalizing marijuana, then when they are elected they don't do anything with the legalization of marijuana. Well that is again up to the people then if they should reelect that representative, even in the current system this is a problem I agree. But it comes down to the people who are electing their representatives. And if in turn doing this would have more flaws than benefits, which I believe it wouldn't, then the people and/or states can call for the amendment of this system. The term limits is a different debate, but I agree that they should be installed to the officials of congress to have fresh ideas enter the system. And my last note is, that I could honestly live with not having this system installed, BUT I still see no problem with my proposed system. It would just get a lot more done in a country that seems to be stalled right now. If we could have Congress elect the President then we will have more needed legislation to be passed, and in turn that would help our country.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

I do not deny that the system is plausible, though I am saying that it will not be able to be reached, and even if it is, we are not able to ensure that it would work. For example, let's look at the example of Obama right now. I am not against Obama, but his Presidency is a good example of my point. Well, when Obama first ran, he was voted in because his plans of reshaping our nation seemed so tangible. Though, I don't think anyone would have expected him to have made the changes he did. Did you ever expect such a thing as Obama-care? My point from that example is that although we can ensure that the most seemingly beneficial people get elected, we are only basing this off of superficial opinions. We may vote for the most esteemed and trusted officials for Congress, but their actions may not be similar to the promises they made in their speeches. The term limits seem like a nice idea, too, but a lot of damage can be done in four years. Even more harm can be done to the nation if the Senators, as you proposed, had unlimited terms. Your proposition seems like a good plan, but will not be successful because the problems I mentioned above expose the flaws, and they hinder any notion that the system could work.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

Yes but if we do not trust or like the officials we select, then why do we vote for them, if we don't like them? That is a problem with politicians and not how the government is structured. If people do not like the choices their officials in Congress are making then they should not reelect them. Think if the President was elected by Congress we would sort of merging the legislative and executive branches, which would be very beneficial for passing legislation which is blocked by Republican Congress and Democratic President. If this system of Congress elected the President was enacted, then if your Congressmen vote for a President that you don't like then you shouldn't reelect them, making them consider the opinions of the citizens they represent. And your comment on 'venal officials who are power-hungry', what we could do to prevent these officials from being this way is installing term limits. Say Representatives can serve for four years then have to take a four year break before they can run again, and Senators can serve for unlimited terms, since they are to have more experience. So if we can work out the kinks with bad officials in Congress, would you say that the system I am proposing would work? I still believe, even with 'venal officials' in Congress, that the system I am proposing would work.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

Well, there are obvious reasons why the Congress should not be allowed to vote for the President. Firstly, as you said, it does not comply with the constitution that the nation was built on. As long as we continue to follow the rules the constitution lays out, we should continue to use the current voting system. In addition, trust is an issue. Of course the people may vote for the Congressmen, but that doesn't mean that they are doing a good job in office. Most, if not all, Congressmen work for themselves to benefit themselves. They do not work for the interests of other. We may vote for them, but that does not ensure that they will listen to us. Finally, you said that, "And again my major argument, that we would be electing our officials who would be electing our President, so in sense we would be electing out President inadvertently." Well, they are not obliged to vote for the candidate the population says. They will once again makes a choice that will benefit themselves, and vote for whoever they want. These men and women are venal officials who are power-hungry, and, even though the current system is flawed, the newly proposed system would be even worse.
President Elected by Congress, not by the people

I know that this goes against what our founding fathers believe in, but I see no real harm done.. It is my opinion that American's vote for their Representatives and Senators for their political positions, say con abortion, then why shouldn't their Representatives and Senators be able to elect a President that is also against abortion themselves? Also having Congress elect the President would pretty much put an end to legislation blocking done by the president. An example being if we have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, if Congress passes a law restricting the use of birth control the democratic President is going to block the legislation because of his political stance. But if Congress would elect the President, then we would have a Republican Congress and a Republican President, meaning that the law restricting birth control would get passed and not blocked. This system works out in countries like Britain and Japan. And again my major argument, that we would be electing our officials who would be electing our President, so in sense we would be electing out President inadvertently.
Animal Testing

I am sorry to my opponent for not being available for the past round(s). I was unfortunately not time conscious about this particular debate ad I apologize. I shall now post my arguments. First As my opponent requests to Answer truthfully, I have taken Tylenol, aspirin, etc... And I have been to the doctor. I would not give up my doctor and medicine but that dosnt mean that a better alternative can be chosen then working on animals. Second Why do animals have to be forcibly taken from their environment and be subjected to unwanted tests. I ask my opponent to answer truthfully, would he like to be taken from hips family and be subjected to tests? Animals also have feelings and should thus be allowed to live their lives without being tested. Third It's also immoral to test on animals. They have been tested on for many cures to many diseases yet people still die of them even if the number is small. Organs can be donated to be tested on instead and if animals can't test us which is impossible then we shouldn't test them. Sources http://www.forandagainst.com...
Animal Testing

Since I am Pro, I am for animal testing. My opponent has not defined animal testing; therefore, I shall offer a definition I think we can both agree upon. Animal Testing: Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments [1]. I eagerly await my opponent’s opening arguments and wish him luck. With that said, I affirm the resolution, “Animal testing should be allowed”. [1] . http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...