BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Force Feeding of Anorexics

However, I would agree with him by saying that it will now be very boring. Despite, its boringness it will educational to all who read. I will start by defending my argument. My Opponent: "In the state that my opponent describes, the patient would have been malnourished for far too long to be able to use his or her gastrointestinal system. " I think that a source is in order here. Unless my opponent can upload a copy of his Master's Degree in nutrition, I do not think that he is qualified to make such claims without backing them up. My Opponent: "The patient would have to be given oxygen because the advanced state of undernourishment would have had severe effects on the diaphragm and the patient would be in great risk of respiratory distress. " Another source please. My Opponent: "Thus, even if the patient's GI tract were still functioning, it would not be feasible to perform this procedure. If my opponent goes through with this, he will likely cause gastric sepsis and intense pain for the patient, and he will lose his right to practice (if he were a doctor). " Operatintg under this assumption, surgery should be illegalized. Surgery can cause extreme pain to the patient after it has happened; however, surgeries still happen. Surgeries still happen because the possible good benefits associated with it outweigh the possible negative affects that will accompany it. I would take stomach cramps over death anyday and I'm sure my opponent would too. Feeding the patient would have good benefits that outweigh the bad, therefore it is justifiable and the pain experience by the patient is not unessecary. The pain could be controled by medications. I have now asked politley for my opponent to back up the claims that he as made. Since the rest of his previous argument is nothing more than countless details that rely on the assumptions he made above, I will attack his reasoning other than his arguments. My opponent doesn't seem to understand medical ethics. A doctor is obligated to do whatever he or she sees as being in the best interests of their patient. If a doctor feels that feeding the patient is actually worse for their health than not feeding them at all, then he doesn't have to feed them. He isn't obligated to. Period. Than you for your time.
Force Feeding of Anorexics

My opponent's plan to force-feed anorexics to preserve their lives is noble, but not very well thought out. My opponent has stated that in his situation, the patient has a 50-50 chance of dying within seven days, in which case his treatment would be completely ineffective. In the state that my opponent describes, the patient would have been malnourished for far too long to be able to use his or her gastrointestinal system. Moreover, the patient likely has little to no muscle mass and poor organ function. The patient would have to be given oxygen because the advanced state of undernourishment would have had severe effects on the diaphragm and the patient would be in great risk of respiratory distress. Since the oxygen would have to be provided in that manner, there would be no way to use an NG tube anyway physically. Thus, even if the patient's GI tract were still functioning, it would not be feasible to perform this procedure. If my opponent goes through with this, he will likely cause gastric sepsis and intense pain for the patient, and he will lose his right to practice (if he were a doctor). In fact, the common solution in this case is TPN, parental nutrition delivered intravenously. Several studies and published articles propose TPN in cases of what is called "Anorexic refeeding". NG refeeding is a common technique but has many GI complications even for mildly anorexic people, and brings up a wide variety of legal and ethical issues. TPN bypasses all of these issues as it is not force-feeding, but definitive medical treatment. Total parenteral nutrition bypasses the GI tract and is compounded by pharmacists to include electrolytes, water, glucose, amino acids, and essential fatty acids. There is no digestion taking place with TPN. Proper course of treatment for this patient would be to keep him or her on TPN until stabilized, treat liver or kidney failure if necessary or possible. If the patient ever regains his health and GI function, then a prescription should be written for an SSRI indicated for the treatment of anorexia nervosa. The patient should also be given dronabinol to induce appetite and begin therapy. This method is far superior to what my opponent has proposed and is also supported by the medical community over NG tube feeding. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you. Sources: The study 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.bentham.org... Definition of parenteral nutrition from wikipedia 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. My class notes and professional opinion.
Force Feeding of Anorexics

=== Resoultion === The resolution is as follows: Those who suffer from anorexia, when deemed by a medical professional that they are at a severe risk of death beacause of their low body weights, should be force-fed via a tube inserted through their nose, down the esphougus, and into the stomach for their own safety. === Definintions === Anorexia- is an eating disorder characterized by extremely low body weight, distorted body image and an obsessive fear of gaining weight. In most industrialized western countries, it is considered a mental illness. Medical Professional-anybody who has obtained a degree, and is currently working, in the field of medicine. For the purposes of this debate, a medical professional would be a nutritionist. A severe risk of death-a state in which somebody has a more than 50% chance of death within the next 7 days if immeadiate medical action is not taken. Safety-the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. For this purpose of this debate, the physical safety of the anorexic is being taken into account. Note: These definitions should be treated as rules, not contentions. If you have a problem with the definitions do not take the debate. I am not interested in semantics, I am interested in the issue at hand. === Arguments === 1) Anorexia, since it is a mental illness, imparis the judgement of those affected. As so, Anorexics are not capable of making their own decisions when the consequences of their decisions could pose a severe risk to their safety. Therefore, capable medical professionals have to be put in the posistion of making their patient's decisions (beacause the patient is mentally ill); espicially if those decisions could result in the death of a human being. 2) Every medical professional have the obligation to preserve human life, no matter the circumstance. In the case of mentally ill patients, this espicially holds ture. 3) To allow an anorexic to not eat would be to make treatment of the disease impossible. It's kind of hard to treat a dead patient. The focus of medicine should be treatment. Prolonging the life of the anorexic will make treatment possible in the futre, therefore, there is an obligation to keep them alive. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Technology changed the role of women.

No, I believe that technology does not have a direct and sole impact on which the role of women is changing. Throughout the period of the last 75 years the effect of World War 2 was so significant that it affected the roles of which both men and women now serve in today’s society. For example, woman had to take up factory work due to labour shortages in order to supply the frontline with; munitions, weapons, armoured vehicles and other essential equipment by which their countries needed. This wasn’t even including warfare supplies, professional roles that require education such as; doctors, rehab workers and perhaps scientific roles demanding more educated people and this forced women to step out of their normalized role of being the stay-home caretaker to being a significant income worker for their significant others. This change also influenced other major historic events such as; women’s rights, equality and education. This time period allowed women to demonstrate their potential and confidence. World War 2 also affected the male population, whereas obviously there was less of them to return to their former role as breadwinner. The 60’s and 70’s followed with the now normalized effect of the multi-role gender society and progressed with a culture that influenced the generations to come. The post WW2 generation known as the “Baby Boomers” produced an exceptional amount of potentially dissatisfied youth as forthcoming citizens into reconsidering the course of the American/UK and other democratic societies. Post-war recovery encouraged the generation to move forward beyond the established lifestyle that had preoccupied their Depression-era parents, in such a movement that allowed them to also establish the current lifestyle of which we now undertake, including the roles that the baby-boomers and their parents were forced to assume. Over time, the women’s trends of the Sixties took was eventually established and the consequent decades altered relations between the sexes. By this time, most young women, at least in the middle-class, was respectively ordinary to have access to the same occupations and to obtain the same payment as men. Poster byJ. Howard Miller was made as an inspirational image to boost worker morale during WW2.
Technology changed the role of women.

Firstly, appreciate the opportunity to debate on this topic, for I think it would be an interesting one, and would like to see more of your thoughts on the matter. For my argument I shall take the position of con for which I believe that technology was the sole reason for women to switch roles, when in fact I believe that the combination of WW2 and the culture of the 60’s and 70’s caused different routes of income and diversifying roles between genders. In the next three rounds I shall clarify why this has happened in the form of my own opinion.
Rape culture exists in North America

I am happy to open the discussion up to include the UK. NOTE: The following argument contains distubing language around the topic of Rape. I have had to alter the profanity in the quotes to be able to pubish the argument. The Existence of Rape Culture in North America and the UK In order to prove something exists it is sufficient to show examples of it. One of the most overt examples of Rape Culture is therape threat, which clearly communicates a belief that rape is acceptable in a particular circumstance. There are many examples of rape threats in North America and the UK. Here are just a few:Rape Threats Towards Rebecca WatsonRebecca Watson is a member of the American Athiest movement [5]. She has been sent many rape threats including [6]:"Can sombody please rape Rebecca Watson? She would love it""What she needs is to be bent over and have her a**hole cored out for a few hours until she is a sore, swollen, gaping mess""someone needs to stick d*cks in your mouth so you stfu stupid bitch""honestly, and i mean HONESTLY. . you deserve to be raped and tortured and killed. swear id laugh if i could" Rape Threats Towards Anita SarkeesianAnita Sarkeesian is a Canadian-American media critic [7]. She received rape theats including [8]:"You Stupid A** Bitch I Will F*ck You In The A** So Hard""im gonna bust dem sugar walls leave an aids load in der""I hope you get raped by 4 men with 9 inch cocks""imma kill u and rape u"Rape Threats Towards Caroline Criado-PerezCaroline Criado-Perez is an British activist and journalist [9]. She has received rape threats including [10]:"SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH. .. .. OR ILL SHUT IT FOR YOU AND CHOKE YOU WITH MY D*CK""open that cunt wide bitch. You about to feel da pain! ""PUT BOTH YOUR HANDS ON MY COCK AND STROKE IT TILL I CUM ON YOUR EYEBALLS. DO AS I F*CKING SAY OR I'LL SLIT YA THROAT. ""WOMEN THAT TALK TOO MUCH NEED TO GET RAPED"There are many [11], many [12], many [13] more documented instances of rape threats in our society. SummaryP1: Rape threats in our society are examples of Rape Culture, as they suggest a belief that rape is acceptable in a particular circumstanceP2: There are numerous documented cases of rape threats in North American and UK societyC: Rape Culture exists in North American and UK society5. . http://www.slate.com...6. . http://skepchick.org...7. . https://en.wikipedia.org...8. . http://femfreq.tumblr.com...9. . https://en.wikipedia.org...10. . https://weekwoman.wordpress.com...11. . http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...12. . https://www.rt.com...13. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
Rape culture exists in North America

This debate is on whether rape culture exists in North America. I am Pro and assume the burden of proof. Debate formatRound 1 Pro - Outlining debate and definitionsCon - Acceptance and initial arguments (if desired)Round 2-4Pro & Con: Arguments and rebuttalsDefinitions for this debateRape - Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will [of a person] or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent [1 Removed text "usually of a female"]Culture - The beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time [2]Rape Culture - The beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place or time that trivialize rape, or suggest that rape is acceptable in certain circumstances [From combining the above]Exist - To have actual being : to be real [3]North America - The continent of the western hemisphere NW of S. America bounded by Atlantic, Arctic, & Pacific oceans [4]1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
abortion

On the cons case.. 1. According to the bible, shaving your beard is also a sin Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Leviticus 21:5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. When the bible can be a moral guidebook, sometimes... It holds no weight in a real world setting. Many Americans have looked away from their faith by now or finally understand that their religious views should not determine the laws and actions of a government that does not back one specific religion. 2-5. I'd really like to ask how abortion is murder at all. Aborting a baby when it is still in the earliest stages of development (what is most commonly done) is no different than a man masturbating and killing his sperm cells. There are times when abortions are morally right. 1. When it is done in the early stages of development 2. If the woman had been raped 3. If the baby poses a mortal threat to the mother Theres more, but you get the point. The fight against abortion acts as a way of suppressing the woman of the world and not allowing their voice to be heard. Although many do not believe in abortion, the individual woman should be the one making the decision, it is her body.
Obama was a good President

BoP is shared. I hope you understand that. Asking questions is not debating and you have yet to make an arguement not in the form of a question.You have not rebtted any of my arguementsAnd yes you said "What policy created private sector jobs (government jobs exploded though)?" So of course you thought they were the same or that you thought i thought thatHard Working americans who work 2-3 jobs need food stamps to survive. Probably because of the economic disasters of Bush.The reason stimulus spending is not deficit is because Obama DIDNT create a deficit using the stimulus spending. He actually cut the deificit.Barrack Obama has also flattened federal spendinghttp://www.ebaumsworld.com... (Copy and Paste link on this story.) Ive provided links for you from my sources. You can take a look at them if you want.
Obama was a good President

Actually, I know a great deal about what I am talking about, having actually studied at the college level the subject of this debate whereas all you have is revisionist history and Dem talking points. This general ignorance explains why you think I equated government jobs with private sector jobs when, in reality, I did the opposite. And yes, the number of people on food stamps and unemployment level are macro economic indicators of how well an economy is doing. In Obama's case, those on food stamps have exploded. That is more people living off the labor of others because the economy is so bad they cannot take care of themselves. And the unemployment rate is around 5%, but I was speaking of the labor participation rate. You see, when people stop looking for work, they are no longer counted an unemployed even though they do not have jobs. The labor participation rate measures those who are abled bodied and should be working. Under Obama, tens of millions have given up looking for work, making them not counted against unemployment. But they are counted in the labor participation rate. Thanks to Obama, there are more people riding in the cart than pulling it, a very bad thing economically. But you did not answer my first two questions so I ask again: Tell us what policy of Obama's created a single private sector job (We know he exploded government jobs)? Tell us what policy of Obama cut unemployment? Stimulus spending is not deficit spending? Are you that ignorant? Where did Obama get the money for the stimulus spending if not deficit spending. And Obama has added $10T to the national debt. On what planet is taking the national debt from $8T to $18T the result of a cult. And stull us how the stimulus help struggling businesses and provided money for job creation? You just said stimulus spending is NOT deficit spending and now you say it is? Which is it? And tell how adding $10T to the debt protected the economy? Tell us how ObamaCare has decreased healthcare costs? And you ignored my Q about health insurance cost going up and that does not even include the millions who lost it? And you did not tell me how Obama adding 1000s of pages of government regulations (and that was just for Obamacare) helped the economy?
Obama was a good President

My opponent has made no arguements and has just used his rounds to ask questions.1) Government jobs are NOT private sector jobs. So you dont really understand what you are talking about2) We are talking about economics. We arent focusing on food stamps. And no unemployment is at its lowest rate at 5 percent.3) Stimulus spending is not deficit spending. I really think you are confused. Obama has CUT the deficit by over half. Obama's stimulus bill cost a lot of money but helped struggling buisnesses and provided money for job creation. This helped us dodge another great depression4) Adding 10 trillion dollars was part of his stimulus spending and spending on other various bills to protect the economy. We also have to look at the facts of who really was the washingotn spenderBush had an 88 percent increase in government spending while Obama just had a 3.72 percent increase in government spending5) ObamaCare actually decreases healthcare costs. Its saved citizens and government millions3.2 billion dollars have already been saved just on prescription drugs6) Can you give me an example of Obama regulating the economy?Sources:http://www.ehow.com...http://www.upworthy.com...https://www.bing.com...
Obama was a good President

Woe there, big guy. But aware the revisionist history and Democrat talking points and tell us what what policies of Obama actually helped the economy? Tell us what policy of Obama's created a single private sector job (We know he exploded government jobs)? Tell us what policy of Obama cut unemployment? And tell us about how Obama gave us the highest percentage of non-working Americans and highest food stamp usage in history? Tell us how deficit spending (what you called stimulus spending) helped? Tell us how his adding $10T to the national debt helped anything? Tell us how making health insurance more expensive helped the economy? Tell us how many the federal government making the economy more regulated helped the economy?
Obama was a good President

President Obama has done alot to save us from the terrible economic policies of BushSo before we look at the great things Obama has done we need to look at the failures he inherited from Bush Under this graph we see that President Bush turned President Clitnons Surplus into a massive deficit. And no that little turn up in the graph is not Bush's success. Thats when president Obama took office and started economic reform. Another graph showing Bush's failure at maintiaing the deficitHere this one shows that the deficit hits a record 400 billion dollars.Now lets look at a side by side comparison of Bush and Obama This graph shows the amount of private sector jobs created by Bush and ObamaBush is the farthest left and is losing jobs by 462,000However Obama on the far right is making 12,870,000 private sector jobsThanks Obama Here we can see the unemployment rate. President Bush's unemployment is skyroketing until it hits the top. That is where president Obama takes office and the unemployment is cut drasitically The amount of corparte earning in America skyrockets as Obama takes office as we can see in this graph As we can see in this graph president Obama has cut the deificit almost in half after his election in 2008 President Obama has also increased Oil Production strenghting our economy.President Obama also saved us from another Great Depression through his stimulus spending that have "stimulated" the economy.http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com...To say Barrack Obama is a bad president when it comes to the economy is at best ignorant and at worst a lieSourceshttp://smartwiki.org...https://ourfuture.org...https://www.bing.com...http://www.politicalruminations.com...http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com...(If you cannot see the graphs properly please click on this link to see them. I had an issue where i couldnt paste the enlarged photos without it copying my profile with it http://www.debate.org... )
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping. A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams. We as a society should not promote the use of drugs. And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body. We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible. Just because it is hard to screen every athlete for PEDs and the results havn't been perfect doesn't mean we should give up.