BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
euthinasia

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health is pretty irrelevant, since it involved a woman who was in a PSV (persistent vegetative state.) [1] "Euthanasia" is the practice of ending a life for his or her benefit (i.e., to relieve pain and suffering.) [2] She was in an unconscious state, so one really cannot determine if she was in pain or suffering. Hence, one cannot say that removing her from life support was an act of euthanasia. And, indeed, it is true that based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, people have the right to refuse medical care. This is not assisted suicide but rather an act of self-deprivation (which, we must also remember, does not necessarily guarantee death) [3]; hence, euthanasia is a completely different matter. Two physicians agreeing is not enough of a justification. Two physicians can look at the same flawed blood test and come up with the same conclusion... That doesn't mean that the conclusion becomes right. And let us remember the patient saying that he or she wants to die does not make the diagnosis any more true or the chances of recovery any fewer. The aforementioned five-year-old boy who contracted a deadly strain of E. coli survived. He suffered a lot, but he lived through it, despite the doubtful views of the doctors. Although they may have had mixed feelings before, the parents, if asked now, would most certainly not wish the boy was killed during his illness. Through the painful obstacles he endured, there was a small glimmer of hope. Ultimately, he received the gift of life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nrlc.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
euthinasia

Firstly i would like to appoligize for my grammer. Sorry but i have always been like this. I will attempt to try to clean it up but that is all i can do. And yes i really did graduate high school my special ed qualification allowed me to get thru this and worse then this is my handwriting. Ok it has always rejected this and it is true. But acording to Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health if i dont give you permission to help me and you do it is considerd assault [1] there for causing harm. Mean while the erson must then go without food, water, medication and other life giving items and slowly die. Also oregon remains the only state that allows assisted suicide by statute. [1] And as for your argument of of time to peoples lack of time with family and chances of survival. This is why two physicans must agree to life being out of reach. And the order can only be given by the sick person or his family if he is unable to speak.[1] So it is that persons right to choose if they want time with there family first or not. So in the end i ask you is it better to assault the person or let him suffer more from lack of bodily needs or to allow them to go with out any pain what so ever
euthinasia

First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence. ---Now to my case:"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional. "'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced. A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends. ---[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
euthinasia

ok and thank you for taking me on ok while most people view euthanasia as suicide I find it to simply to be an escape from pain if you survive a crash and the doctors think they cant help or that they can but you will undergo more pain be more disfigured and there is only a slight percent chance of survival then I ask you what is the point of having you loved ones know the pain you r going through get there hopes up and then if you don't its just that much more they r hurt now the supreme court has already ruled that the right to life also means the right to death so in any state the person has the right to say they do not wish to carry on and to stop all medical treatment but this can be slow and painful as you have to wait to die even if you r survivng because of something that hurts you is incurable but takes weeks or years to kill you the person has the right to ask not to be cared for in which case they do not get food or water and have to die by that method which is also painful however in Oregon they have a law allowing for euthanasia in which case upon the patients request the doctor takes has to evaluate they r mentally sound and r not being forced by outside pressure two doctors must then talk and make sure survival is impossible or very low if both agree the patient is given one final chance to resend the wish for death if it is not then the doctor fills out a report and inject the patient with a toxin to kill them with out pain
Monogamy is generally bad.

"However, if we will deal with hypotheticals, it is equally fair to suppose that proper education about monogamy etc. would also prevent many of the problems we see now." True. "…one could argue that polygamous or open relationships are the causes of many of our social ills." And one could argue the earth is 6000 years old and every species lived within walking/swimming/flying distance of Noah's boat, but one has to abandon certain elements of logic. But this is a false dichotomy because my argument against monogamy is reasoned. Since deregulation of mating plus has never been tried, which is what I mean when I suggest the option of polygamy, no argument can be made about what crimes it has caused, only what crimes it could maybe cause. "We cannot deny either that polygamy poses similar threats as I have just described." I can , and do. Monogamy is a systematic submission to general jealousy. And most anytime one submits to a negative emotion, there is a negative result. Monogamy is the idea that jealousy is ok and we should do what it says. That's bad. You're going to have to show that monogamy is not what I've just described, or show that jealousy is a good thing generally. And that's just the core point, there are hordes of others, stemming from my list.
Monogamy is generally bad.

Perhaps it is indeed true that the government should not have laws againt the practicing of polygamy. However, this was not the point I was trying to make, and as it does not deal directly with the main argument, I will address it as quickly as I can. My point was not of whether or not it was right for the government to do so, but that their influence by doing so was, wrong or right, not overly oppressive or controlling. As for all these negative effects being scions of monogamy, one could argue that polygamous or open relationships are the causes of many of our social ills. Because a significant cause of people being involved in open relationships is preganancies and, thus--in that there is no specific tie for the father and mother--resulting in many fatherless homes, as the mother is stuck to rear the children. This is something which has been proven again and again to provide unstable environment for children, and has also been proven to have a direct tie to significantly increased crime levels. Of course, your argument for a more educated society would seem to prevent something such as this. However, if we will deal with hypotheticals, it is equally fair to suppose that proper education about monogamy etc. would also prevent many of the problems we see now. It cannot be denied that if every person entered into a sound, lasting relationship then many of these problems of crime, in which -polygamy- is the cause, would be done away with. This in turn creates a defense for my point that your arguments are sound: while they may indeed point to logical conclusions, we cannot deny either that polygamy poses similar threats as I have just described.
Monogamy is generally bad.

"…this is not the claim that I made." Indeed, my apologies, I must have been confusing you with someone else. "There is no legal punishment for someone being involved with multiple partners, so long as they are not married." Kind of like there is no legal punishment for being gay so long as they are not married? Your point sounds overly apologetic to me. For many people the logical conclusion to love is marriage, to outlaw that conclusion is as invasive as outlawing sex. Marriage is a deeply personal thing and the state should stay the hell out. All the same arguments that can be used to defend mixed race marriages and gay marriage can be used to defend polygamous marriage. Mixed race dating was never officially illegal to my knowledge either but they found a way to suppress it. I want attacking the mere option to be seen for what it is, a form of bigotry. "I do not think they need to be taught against monogamy as much as the additional behavioral issues that are not controlled: violence, abuse, etc." The attitudes caused by monogamy give birth to these forms of violence and abuse. What you are suggesting is like saying that national socialism isn't the problem, racism is, when in the relevant context, one caused the other. You're advocating the treatment of the symptoms, I'm advocating the treat me of one of the causes. This approach will not cure the condition, which is why social program aimed at them (anti violence anti domestic abuse etc) are money pits with no appreciable effect. I'm not saying close all battered women's shelters I'm just saying that in addition to a symptomatic approach we must look for a causal one as well. And maybe eventually we won't need them anymore. Monogamy and it's mother Puritanism, actually gave birth to serial killers and sex crime. It is not argued that serial murder for sexual reasons is a relatively recent phenomenon. If you seriously want to end half these problems and a whole slew of other legalize and deregulate prostitution. Criminalize the sale of sex when you have an std of course, but otherwise stay the hell out of it. And I gotta say, the debate is not polygamy is good, the debate is monogamy is bad, I know one is a direct result of the other, but still... "As I expected, your arguments about the potential dangers of monogamy are indeed sound." ...should be the death knell of your whole point.
Monogamy is generally bad.

"You claim that nothing changes is absurd to me in the extreme and I'm at a loss." Indeed, it would be entirely absurd to make the claim that when one enters into a monogamous relationship (or any relationship, in fact) that nothing that changes. Fortunately for my defense, this is not the claim that I made. I simply stated that "being in a monogamous relationship does not keep us isolated from others." And, to be fair, I even conceded to the fact that oftentimes, especially in the beginning of a relationship, a couple may withdraw a bit and become more isolated, as you put it. "Except that polygamy is a crime." Again, polygamy is only a crime in the marital sense. There is no legal punishment for someone being involved with multiple partners, so long as they are not married. "Explain to me how merely lifting a prohibition forcibly excludes people." Lifting the prohibition against polygamy itself would not in itself require exclusion, but to ensure an ideal society, such as the one you are describing, it's hard to believe that simply anyone, in any ideal society, would be able to be involved without conflict. Now, this is perhaps a key point for me: As I expected, your arguments about the potential dangers of monogamy are indeed sound. However, it is far from the case that any of these will necessarily happen in a monogamous relationship. Certainly one could list all of the evils that may and do come from polygamy, yet this does not mean that they will happen in an intelligent society, especially the type such as you are describing. As such, I believe one could apply the same to monogamy. You speak of re-education the public—I do not think they need to be taught against monogamy as much as the additional behavioral issues that are not controlled: violence, abuse, etc.
Monogamy is generally bad.

So, a lot of your argument is that monogamy is something imposed by institutions and that it keeps us "sad" and "at each other's throats." First, you make it sound as though monogamy is something currently, continually, and deliberately reinforced by institutions with the specific intent of controlling us. I see this as a considerable stretch. For one, being in a monogamous relationship does not keep us isolated from others. While it may restrict sexual intimacy to a significant degree, sexuality is not the only way we may beome close with others. Marriage is not an isolation or a cage. Yes, those in a relationship may initially recede a bit as they become more involved with each other, but this is typically just a phase that passes with the fading of standard romantic infatuation. Now, to deal with those domineering institutions. For now, unless you want to introduce others, I will divide institutions into two groups: government and religion. The government does not restrict polygamy in any sense except for marriage, but marriage is truly more of a religious aspect than governmental. And while religion--especially Judeo-Christianity--is opposed to polygamy, this is for moral reasons, as opposed to controlling. Looking over your argument, you also seem to deal a lot with a very hypothetical, "mature society." However, I don't think you need to be an angsty emo kid to claim that our society is anything but. Creating an ideal polygamist society would require a significant exclusion of most people. You say that you while "annihilate [your] enemy with patience, human nature, and education." Personally, I don't think people will be able to be educated into supporting polygamy, especially not the stubborn religious folk. All of this just seems, to me, to be too hypothetical. Most importantly to me, I want to address the "Mormon version of polygamy." What I was discussing was not Mormon polygamy, it was Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy. Trust me, the one word makes a huge difference, and I would prefer that the two terms are not used interchangeably. And, just in my defense, my attack of strictly polygyny was reserved just for that first argument, and I did give a sound explanation for why I was focusing on that at that point. Lastly, I would just ask that you expound a bit on your claims of the evils monogamy leads to. While I certainly do believe that you have sound reasoning, I am not sure exactly what it is, and this makes it somewhat hard for me to refute.
Monogamy is generally bad.

First of all let me state right from the beginning that I don't expect to lose or win the debate because of my skills or lack of them. I expect to lose or win this debate because people will not read the debate unless they have no opinion on the subject. I will lose or win this debate because when we reach the voting stage, people will choose whomever represents the side they already agreed with. That being said let me make another qualification. This debate will not be my last, it is merely my first. I intend to start separate debates for each and every entry on the list I'm about to publish. Please try to refrain from making this debate about any single part of the list. I assure you, you'll have a chance to go specific on me. This debate is about the general impact of monogamy. Monogamy, as opposed to polygamy in my opinion is/does or contributes to… •Child abuse •Corporate greed •Cruelty •Degrades men and women •Forces needless sometimes lethal competition •Domestic violence •Encourages pettiness and vindictiveness •Environmental abuse •Formation of enemies, Termination of friendships •Increases net global suffering •Neuroses •Pedophilia •Political Apathy •Racism •Reduces innovation •Religious corruption •School shootings •Social apathy •Subpar education •War And to repost the guts of a debate i won only because the opponnent user closed his account... Polygamy is illegal only because it is a threat to primarily negative aspects of government, religion, and commerce. The idea that love is given to a person in unlimited amount for family, country, children, and ideals, but in extremely finite supply for lovers and potential mates, is sold to the American and, any other susceptible public, for reasons of profit, and control. Monogamy is the tool of choice for dividing a population into its smallest productive parts while keeping them from really knowing each other and thus at each other's throats. Monogamy is the wall built around the human intimacy which allows one to see their fellow humans and citizens as "them" and not "us". It is used to keep us distracted, complacent, and sad, such that we will be less resistant and more agreeable. Virtually all American social evils can be attributed at least in part, directly or indirectly, to the practice of restricting one's choice of mate to a single individual, from such personal horrors as domestic abuse for both spouses and children, to vague social issues such as general political apathy and obesity. Every aspect of society that would benefit from increased intimacy among the population (true intimacy, closeness, and empathy, not excluding, but not limited to, sexual intimacy) would be served by groups of socially tolerated polygamists better than disparate binary monogamous units. Groups of people connected and united by polygamous families would serve as a much needed social counterpoint to corporations, churches, and government agencies, which currently amount for nearly all tasked human groups. Thank you for your time and sincere effort. If I do win, I want to earn it.
Essendon's Players should be banned

I think there should simply be separate leagues for people who used steroids and other enhancements and those who do not. Pretty soon we will have people who are bred for specific genetic traits and prosthetic limbs that will make them far superior to normal athletes. Doping will look downright tame by comparison. But for now, I would rather see athletes push themselves beyond the limits of their bodies using technology than watch them be hobbled by people who think that the human race should cede to evolve any further than it already has. Passing a "no steroids rule" is like passing a rule in basketball that says no player shall be over 6 feet tall.
Essendon's Players should be banned

Full Resolution: The players of the Essendon Football Club should receive the standard 2-year suspension for doping. I don't know if anyone on here will know what I'm talking about, but it's worth a shot. I believe that, regardless of whether or not the players were aware they were being given a banned substance they should still be suspended. First round acceptance. Forfeiting any round will result in the full 7 points being awarded to the other debater.
Essendon's Players should be banned

The idea that a rule should be enforced simply because it exists is a fallacy. Its the reasoning behind the rule that is important. If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the player knew they were taking an illicit substance, they should not be banned, merely stripped of whatever titles and records they had received during that time. I do not see what gives this appointed agency the right to create rules and regulations and enforce them without regard to players rights to arbitration or fair hearing. Remember, athletes are employees, and have all the same entitlements in that regard as any other employee, including access to civil courts. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they knew that they were taking an illicit substance, then yes, according to the terms of their agreement, they should be banned. But as is, there is some question as to whether they knew they were taking steroids to begin with. Players often consume several different types of enhancements, most of them perfectly legal, such as vitamins, protein powder, herbal supplements, ect. If they were given, as prescribed by a professional, illegal substances as part of their training regiment, and told that they were 100% legal, with no prior knowledge as to what those substances were, they should not be banned. Remember, these are people, people with kids and families that depend on their income, who were just doing there job, and risked censure by NOT taking these substances.
Essendon's Players should be banned

The Essendon Supplement Scandal has attracted a lot of media intention in Australia lately. The fact of the matter is, that during the off season these players were administered illegal peptides, believed to be AOD-9604 and Thymosin Beta 4, which was not approved for human use and is banned under the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). If these players took this drug, then under the current system they should be banned for professional sports for the mandatory two year period outlined in the WADA code, of which Australia is a signatory. [1]These banned substances were apparently administered by club sports scientist Stephen Dank and club doctor Stephen Dank, with the players claiming that they believed to whole thing was legal. However section 2.2.1 of the WADA code reads: "It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method" [2]We can take two key things away from this. The first being that it is the athletes responsibility to make sure they do not take a prohibited substance. Second, that it is not necessary that an athlete knows they have taken a banned substance in order to violate the terms of the WADA code. So the question now becomes, was a performance enhancing drug taken? Well Essendon have all but admitted to administering their players with AOD-9604, a human growth variant. In his interview on the popular talk show, On the Couch Essendon captain Jobe Watson admits to it himself. (See video) http://www.youtube.com...The evidence is growing larger and larger in the wake of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA) report into the matter, and while this investigation remains on-going. As a fan of the game, this entire situation makes me feel deeply troubled. I really feel very sorry for the players, who seem to the victims in this entire saga. However, the rules are there, and it is not fair on the other 17 clubs in the competition if another club is able to take banned substances and get away with it. I do not even know where to begin with my opponents opening statement, except to say with. The resolution of this debate is about what should happen to the Essendon players, not to sport in generally, and if that's the angle that you want to argue then it's fine by me, as long as you keep it relevant. [1] http://www.theage.com.au...[2] http://stage.wada-ama.org...