BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Mass Is a Valid Catholic Mass

Rules: Round #1: Acceptance only. Rounds #2-3: Argument and rebuttal. Round #4: Rebuttal and summation. Accepting this debate implies stipulating there is at minimum one valid Catholic Mass and the Catholic faith exists; accepting does not require my opponent be a follower of Catholicism. Use of Google Docs or any other method to avoid the time constraints or to modify arguments after submission is a violation of conduct. Any rule violation constitutes grounds for a 7 point loss.I will argue the New Mass is not a valid Catholic Mass. New Mass- any Mass with changes introduced after the papacy of Pope Pius XII.
Euthanasia is unethical

Rules are as follows and basically the same for all my debates: 1. I have a Zero-Tolerance for harsh language. However, euphemisms, (Dang, darn, heck, frick) have acceptance at a minimum. Excessive use is inappropriate in a debate setting. 2. Any tangible information used to prove the truth of the matter asserted must at least one (1) reliable source. A short description of the approximate location in the source would be helpful as well. 3. Wikipedia is NOT a source. Special rules for this kind of debate (Category - Social Morality/ethics): 1. Unique hypothetical situations are usually not appropriate to the question and premises of the larger argument. Steer clear unless used as rebuttals for definitive statements. 2. Emotions and personal experience is a supplement, not a replacement, for logic. 3. Ethics, morality, and philosophy will play a large role, I suspect. If you know the thinker who came up with the argument, supply his or her name and work. Definitions: Euthanasia Merriam-Webster Medical definition: ": the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also : the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life"called also mercy killing " This debate will specifically relate to physician assisted euthanasia. Unethical Merriam-Webster definition: "not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable " Again, round one is acceptance. God bless. Looking forward to a good debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Euthanasia is unethical

I welcome my opponent's opening contentions and provide the following rebuttals.It denies the value of human lifeI am aware that the value of human life is a very difficult thing to measure and the question, "Can you even put a value on human life?" is a popular question, but in the cases where someone is in a completely gone mentally and is only "alive" physically, can that really be called a life? It would be more morally correct to let them go, rather than to force them to stay in the immovable cage that their body would become. Life is defined as an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.[1] With that definition of life, it wouldn't really be denying the value of life to euthanize a completely unresponsive patient. Also, people can decide what they want the value of their own life to be, for it is their life. When someone feels like they have nothing left to offer in the world, and they know that they have no capability of doing anything else, because of their medical issue, then they have the right to decide whether or not they should be euthanized. It plays GodI have also had issues with suicidal thoughts in my life, so I completely understand why my opponent would have this sort of standpoint, and I am somewhat religious so I will provide instances that actually make euthanasia match up with Christianity reasonably well. God gave humans free will, and in that he intended for us to make our own decisions with our life on Earth, and that is exactly what people do when they decide that they want to be euthanized. The so called "golden rule" of the Bible would be Matthew 7:12, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."[2] If I was ever in the situation where I was terminally ill, I would be glad for someone to end my misery, and I wouldn"t deny that choice to anybody else either. God gave humans free will over what they do. If he didn't everybody would just be a robot with no real thoughts or individuality. Since humans have free will, they should be able to decide when they want their life to end. Slippery SlopeThe people of this world do take things too far when certain restraints are taken away, this I can agree with, but the Nazi T4 program was in effect nearly one hundred years ago, and isn't particularly relevant in this more modern society. It is also a very unique and extreme example that is unlikely to take place again, for "forced euthanasia" seems like it should be considered murder, rather than physician assisted suicide. In this day and age, it is significantly less likely that the availability of the choice to be euthanized will have a result even close to that of the T4 program. Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://biblehub.com... I am looking forward to my opponent’s counter rebuttals
Euthanasia is unethical

However, I do have a rebuttal that I would now like to present. Quality of LifePain is a terrible thing. Disability is too, but I challenge my opponent's position that "There is virtually no quality of life whatsoever. " There are people around the world without a terminal illness, but still with severe pain and disabilities. Take Stephen Hawking. Early in his twenties, he was given 3-5 years to live because of ALS(1), which is USUALLY terminal. Now he's 70 and one of the world's greatest physicists. He cannot speak on his own and can barely move. He is surrounded by nurses 24/7. He has lived a full life with a terminal illness that causes great pain and disability. (2)Even if people with terminal illnesses truly only have a short time on earth, they can accomplish great things and experience life. If the mind is still sharp enough to make the decision to die, their mind is sharp enough to do so much more in their final days. Also, here's something interesting, 90% of patients with terminal illnesses try to commit suicide. (3) The cause is not the pain or a want for dignity of death, but depression. They want to die for the same reason I once did: we lost hope. Not the pain, not the horrors of suffering, but depression is the major cause of a terminally ill patient desiring death. Impossibility of SurvivalIn a world where doctors were perfect and never made mistakes, this would make perfect sense, but people can and do recover from "terminal" diseases, or at the very least live longer than expected. A doctor's diagnosis and time frame is not always right. CostsMy grandfather's heart surgery cost $250,000. The cost to keep him alive and healthy, as I was told by him this past visit, was beginning to border on $500,000. The odds of the surgery being successful had only been about 50%, but you cannot put a dollar increment on the cost on human life. Also, a declaration of terminal is a life expectancy of 6 months. (4) Meaning that the cost of keeping someone alive in that period by my opponent's statistic would be ~$278-$556 a day. Much less than it seems in the statistic. Dignity in DeathAgain, this is playing God. Human birth can be one of the most undignified things in the world. We can't always choose when and where it will happen, It's part of life's cycle. Also, this is another part of my slippery slope argument. This delves too much into the grey area for too little reward. I extend my thus far undisputed contentions. Sources:1. . http://disability.about.com...2. . http://www.disabled-world.com...3. . http://www.life.org.nz...4. . http://jco.ascopubs.org...Thank you and goodnight.
Euthanasia is unethical

I will not be posting any rebuttals in this round, only my beginning arguments. I will be providing four arguments as to why euthanasia should be considered ethical. Quality of LifeFor the terminally ill, there is virtually no quality of life whatsoever. Not only is severe pain a large part of this, but also other physical ailments such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting, breathlessness, paralysis, and difficulty swallowing.[1] These issues will never go away for the terminally ill, and it makes them feel like a burden to their loved ones, thus making their quality of life even worse. There is a reason that euthanasia is considered “mercy killing," and if I was ever put in the position of knowing that I wasn’t going to live, and I was completely dependant on the care of other people, I would be very grateful of having the choice to end it. Impossibility of SurvivalThe definition of terminal is approaching or close to death: being in the final stages of a fatal disease.[2]Euthanasia is only to be carried out when the patient in question has a terminal illness, so therefore, has no chance of survival. There is no point in prolonging the suffering of a fatally ill person when they are going to die anyways. It would be considered a kindness to give the choice of death. CostsIn 2009, it cost between $50,000 and $100,000 to keep a terminally ill patient alive in their last days.[3] In 2013, a day in the intensive care unit of a hospital when the treatment was futile cost an average of $4,004 per patient.[4] I understand that it seems wrong to put a monetary value on a human life, but when that life is going to end anyways, it would be less of a financial burden on the family for the person to be euthanized.Dignity In DeathEuthanasia assures the patient that they will be able to die in dignity. Not everybody is given the choice as to how they will die, and it is a tremendous opportunity when that choice is given. Someone would feel a lot better in dying if they chose how it was done, rather than just waiting for a disease to end it for them. Sources:[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://pulltheplugonlife.wordpress.com...[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Progressives have a significant history of intolerance

I would like to add a definition:Intolerant- lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own [1]. Also, it should be noted that a while a progressive is further left than a Democrat in U. S. politics, but not as far to the left as a radical. I believe the definition of progressive can be better stated as a person who has the political belief of progresssivism which can be defined as follows:Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes usually in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies [2]. The BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that the majority of progressives have a significant history of intolerence. I look forward to a good debate. [1]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.

I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election. DefinitionsDirect election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%. EC: Electoral CollegeGE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election. Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!
The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.

Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.
Paintball is better than airsoft

*Please be respectful in your statements though* Paintball also has many different guns- in woods ball their are semi-autos, 2 finger firers, snipers, "bazookas", and grenades. Also there are venues where you play speedball both indoors and outdoors. Bunkers can be made of wood, foam, "bounce house" material, or an old building. There are many different game plays for paintball, tactical where you search and destroy, speedball which is capture the 1 flag, and woods ball which is all out war. Paintball also is more realistic both in feel and in the guns. Most airsoft uses batteries to propel mini little pieces of plastic at say 180-220 FPS, where as paintballs, shells of about half and inch diameter at about 260-280FPS and burst on impact, sending a feeling of quick pain to the player who was shot. This pain and the sounds of rounds hitting the bunkers ups adrenaline in the players. About the mess at paintball arenas the pain will either hit A. a bunker B. a person C. the wall/curtain D. the floor. Bunkers are cleaned by a small scraper that flings it to the ground, a person can wash their cloths. If it hits the curtain it falls to the ground barely breaking open. The floor is vacuumed by a "body vacuum" by an employ typically a high schooler of college age kid. Making paintball not only good for the players and more fun but good for the employees and economy.
Paintball is better than airsoft

Paintball is better than airsoft for many reasons. First off paintball has a lot more options to play in from speedball to woods ball to backyard battles. Tournaments are held across the globe. From college to indoor to pick up games. A lot more skill is needed to play paintball as well. Playing the "Dorito" side or "snake" takes many skills with angles and 2 finger firing. Paintball is more intense and active.
Paintball is better than airsoft

Whether it releases more adrenaline is whatever you like better, so it could be paintball or airsoft. They do make bio degradable airsoft pellets. But it really doesn't matter if you use the bio degradable ones or the regular ones. I buy the regular ones and let the used ones sit in my yard and the rain washes them away. They make different kids of airsoft ammo. There is .12 gram for the most power but the least accuracy. There is .20 gram have a balance between power and accuracy. There is .25 gram with more accuracy than power. And there is .28 gram with extreme accuracy but the least power. The more powerful guns are better for the heaver bbs since they are already powerful anyway. CO2 and compressed air are basically the same thing except it is 2 different kinds of gases.
Paintball is better than airsoft

There are many types paintball guns here are links: https://www.google.com... a hand gun. Sniper http://www.newegg.com... Assult guns https://www.google.com... There are many types of paintball guns and without sources it is pointless to try and say there is more. There are many other types too check it out http://paintball.about.com... Paintball also is a lot more real, there are alot styles of games too. From mega wars to speedball there are lots of types. Paintball releases more adreniline which makes the player have more energy and is alot more fun. REBUTTLES: Paintball has giant wars too, youtube "giant paintball wars" and you will see huge battle with hundreds of people with guns that can be snipers, rifles, traditional, grenade launchers, and plain out grenades. Paintballs are non-toxic and can be washed off so if you did play in your back yard you can just wash it off, where as airsoft just litters the ground with no biodegradable plastic. Paintball also is fired by multiple things; Co2, compressed air and spring.
Paintball is better than airsoft

You can basically play the exact game types with airsoft. There is more gun types than just batteries, there is green gas and spring also. There are more airsoft gun types than paintball. There are assault rifles, sub machine guns, light machine guns, shotguns, sniper rifles, and pistols. I have seen and used airsoft guns that are 600 FPS, not 220. Airsoft is more realistic. You can basically have a war like the real army but you don't kill anyone. I was not calling you an idiot. It would make sense to have a backyard battle with paintball if you have a huge backyard. But not if it was small and you would get crap all over your house and stuff.
Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

I would like to point something out at this time. I am guessing you consider your self a passivist. The more we discuss this the more hostile you become. The growing tension is palpable. I've seen this same thing with other passivists. You won't smack somebody but you'll tear them to shreds with your mouths. You know, Jesus never once said a man couldn't defend himself but he did say we needed to watch our mouths. Ben Frankliin could be vicious as I understand it. What's the point in saying peace, peace, and I would do thee no harm sir, when you destroy people with your mouths. Just sayin' The cold hard facts of scripture are this: there isn't a single precept or passage in the Bible that teaches passivism as you are teaching it. God never said it was wrong for a man to defend him self. We just need to keep it to a minimum. Anything more and it becomes revenge and that is a problem. When Jesus said "Sell your cloak and buy a sword" he wasn't talking about that night. He was telling them that they would be facing very dangerous times,so dangerous that they would be better of without their cloak, the most important thing a man owned, than without a sword. That was Jesus' main point. He would not have said it if it was a sin to use one to stay alive. And as for the "Enough of this sword talk!" that is an opinion not a fact. That passage is not well understood and there is more than one interpretation of it. The only way you can find passivism other than in mindset (non-agression, non-retaliation) in the Scripture is to read it into the passage. I am deeply concerned about you answer to my rape example. You said she was justified in fighting back because it was sexual immorality. That means necessarily that you think if she's scared and doesn't fight back that's she's a fornicator or an adulterous. I doubt that's what you intended but you need to think of the consequences of your ideas. She has a right to fight back because it's her body and she has the right to not be hurt. And God supports that. The same is true of any human being. We only need to avoid revenge. We only do what we have to do not what we would like to do. You accuse me of not emulating the Prince of Peace. Revelation 19:11-16 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[a] a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[b] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[c] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Perhaps I understand our Prince a bit differently than you do. You have to win the peace. It isn't free.
Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

Thank you, Con.IntroductionBefore I respond to Con's assertions, I would like to apologize for and clarify my rather confusing statement, "It should come as no surprise, then, that God may act differently at different points in history, immutable though he be. To call up just one example of this in the Old Testament, God spoke to Job through a whirlwind and to Ezekiel in a whirlwind."What I had meant to say was, "God spoke to Job through a whirlwind and to Elijah in a still, small voice.""Pacifism as an attitude is supported to a degree. But physical pacifism is never compelled."Please explain how an attitude of pacifism can be supported while pacifistic actions are not. "Jesus never told us or implied that we couldn't defend ourselves, only that we not retaliate." Given that Christ was "led like a lamb to the slaughter,"[1] offering no resistance, and that we are to walk as he walked, this argument does not hold true."Our body is a temple we have the right and responsibility to protect it." Con seems to have a misunderstanding of what it means to have one's body be the temple of Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 reads, "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."Being a temple to Christ doesn't mean preventing bodily harm to yourself, but rather glorifying Christ in your actions. This leads perfectly into one of my favorite points on this topic: the glory of God. God can glorify himself through different means. In the Old Testament he did this by demonstrating his power over false gods through the conquests of his people. Today, he glorifies himself through the transformation of the saints. To quote Origen,We have come in accordance with the counsel of Jesus to cut down our arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take swords against a nation, nor do we learn anymore to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Lord.[2]"We are told to flee persecution." Being told not to have some sort of masochistic penchant for running into the hands of those who would do Christians harm is not the same as being told that it is permissible to use self-defense. "Protecting others is a matter of honor and duty." This has not been questioned. Please recall the definition of contingent Christian pacifism presented in R1: "a system of pacifistic thought based on the Bible in which it is acceptable to use force to defend others but not oneself."Sources1. Isaiah 53:72. http://rogueminister.wordpress.com...
Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

This response is going be a little rough sorry. It's a rush job. Pacifism as an attitude is supported to a degree. But physical pacifism is never compelled. Jesus never told us or implied that we couldn't defend ourselves, only that we not retaliate. We are told to flee persecution. Our body is a temple we have the right and responsibility to protect it. We don't have the right to go beyond what is necessary to protect it. Protecting others is a matter of honor and duty. I'll try to do better on my next post.