BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

As to who would be allowed to pursue euthanasia,hypothetically anyone who has a terminal illness that will die within the next year with or without treatment. As for any legal decision, a 5 year old can not decide that on his own, if after talking to his legal guardian's possibly they reach that decision. Again to the point of sound mind, if they aren't capable of making any other legal or binding agreement there is no reason they should be able to make this decision which is then, again, referred to his or her legal guardian. As for palliative care, of course it's an option, and just like anything else it has to be presented to the patient. However the patient still has the right to refuse that as they do any other treatment. For someone that is going to die there is no such thing as living a normal life. Often times the amount of medication needed to relieve the pain their in is toxic to the body. Now not only are they dying of whatever disease but renal and liver failure. So if some miracle cure was found their is still irreversible damage done to the patient's system. Then again if there isn't cure found, they more than likely spent the last weeks of their life lying in a bed, so medicated that it's arguable how aware they are at times.More to the point the patient has control over his or her body and euthanasia provides what some might see as a more dignified way to go. As for over prescribing euthanasia that won't be an issue for several reasons, one you stated yourself. No doctor, nor any sane human being wants to take a life. No doctor that took that oath would prescribe this until he presented all other options. There would also of course be the legal side to things, how laws are written to define who would be eligible as previously mentioned. On top of that your money argument is ridiculous, after a theoretical patient dies, so does all of his spending. They can no longer charge thousands of dollars a day for a hospital stay, hundreds for the medication keeping him alive, the weekly doctors visits, daily treatments perhaps, no keeping him alive is how they are going to get there money, not by letting someone make a choice that should be theirs to make.
Euthanasia

Who would be allowed to pursue euthanasia? Would you say only terminal patients would be allowed access? from there which terminal patients would be allowed? What if the 5 year old cancer patient decided he would rather speed up his death than wait it out. Would parents be allowed to choose to end their children"s lives? You used the term sound mind, what exactly does that mean to you just so we are both on the same page? My issue with using "sound mind" as your reference point for who is allowed to opt for assisted suicide it may unfairly include/disclude certain persons. What if the illness is something that effects mental competency? How far into that illness would the patient be able to make the decision? As you can see my first issue with allowing euthanasia is it is so vague a claim to make, when the policies would need to be so specific for it to be put into practice. Another issue is there are other possibilities such as palliative care. Palliative care is for those who no longer want to treat the illness. All care instead is aimed at relieving the symptoms to allow for as normal a life as possible with little to no pain. With just palliative care you are not extending life but you are also not choosing to give up. The three months more of life for these terminal patients could be huge. 3 months is enough time for a new treatment to become available. This means someone being told they were terminal and would not survive could have the chance to live if a cure was found, they would just have to be around to see it happen. Allowing doctor assisted suicide would take away that chance to be around for the cure. The last big issue that jumps out to me is the fact it is doctor assisted. The Hippocratic oath swears to do no harm, which any doctor performing euthanasia would be going against. How many doctors would be willing to perform the deed. I beleive it would turn into a joke much like the doctors one goes to to get a medical marijuana card. Doctors unable to perform well enough to make big money would see this as a niche to make a lot of money. Then they would be giving out diagnoses to allow to option more than necessary, just as happened with medical cards, because of the increase in money.
Euthanasia

Thousands of people die each year in the United States due to terminal illness. Often times patients are suffering in the final months of their lives, whether that be from the disease itself or harmful side effects from the amount of medication they must take to relive their pain. A patient that has a sound mind is capable of refusing treatment if they so choose, because they have the right over their own body. For the reason of personal autonomy and to end chronic suffering a patient should have the right to choose to end his life through euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
Atheists Are A Force For Good In This World

Well, I quite disagree with the claim that mostly atheists did worthwhile things while theists were building temples. For starters, many of the Christian temples are works of art. I have an atheist friend who said of some of the duomo's of Italy, "If I believed in God, this is how I'd want to express my admiration". But Christians didn't just build temples, they also built hospitals and orphanages, and figured out that the earth actually rotates around the sun, and is held in place by the very same force that makes an apple fall to the ground. Not enough people realize that the golden age of science was founded on a Christian perspective - it was worshiping a reliable God of laws that led them to expect the reliable laws of nature. But this is all jumping way ahead, without building a foundation for what 'force of good' might even mean. Let me start with an example. Here I type a letter: "F". Now, is this letter F good or bad? You might have two very legitimate reactions to that. The first would be to claim it's a nonsensical question (and I mean 'non sense', not 'stupid') - letters are neither good nor bad, they just are. The second response would be 'not enough information'. You would say you need context for the question. If the letter is a large red F on a test paper, then F is bad. If F is the first letter in the word "Four", then it's very necessary - without it you have an entirely different word. So the concept of good is either nonsense or requires context. What context can atheism provide for the concept? By what context are the physical acts of mankind either good or bad? Seems to me atheism is explicitly denying the metaphysical context. Now I agree that admitting the metaphysical is not admitting God, but as a practical matter I think that's a distinction without a difference. So that leaves the atheist with the 'nonsense' option. By a scientific materialism viewpoint, good is just a pattern of neuron firings in the brain, not categorically different from a sense of motion or heat. It's a more indirect reaction to stimuli, that's all. And by an evolutionary viewpoint, good is merely a pattern of neuron firings that got selected over time. Presumably it somehow tends towards survival or reproduction. So the atheist either has no real basis for claiming to be good, or isn't actually saying much of anything at all. It is only the theist, or at least someone willing to admit to a metaphysical dimension, who can claim that there is a "should be" to our actions, and one is either conforming, or not. And, perhaps I should leave this until closing, but if we do find the existence of true good and evil in the world, then we must look for a metaphysical dimension, and most likely for a God.
Atheists Are A Force For Good In This World

I suppose I will start with something simple: if the ideas are correct. If Christians are correct, then many people will be eternally condemned. If atheists are correct, then nothing will happen. I could go on all day about reasons and never get anywhere in life. Atheists CAN do good, and that is something we agree on. What you and many people are most likely wondering...WILL they? Well, while everyone was busy building temples, atheists were the people who did something productive towards the future of the world. They are the reason that mankind has advanced further than ever, with all our modern technology. And yet, they are still ridiculed simply for being what they are...atheists. Is that fair? No.
Atheists Are A Force For Good In This World

So, I guess I just accept here? I accept. In case I'm supposed to state my position, let me clarify what I think I'm debating: I'm certainly not arguing that atheists can't do good. Obviously atheists can do good and evil, same as anybody else. So the premise has to be more along the lines that atheism is good, so that being wrong about the existence of God somehow biases one towards being a force for good. I will argue that if we take the atheist viewpoint, "good" becomes meaningless, and if we take the theist viewpoint, it's quite a stretch to argue that being wrong somehow makes one a better person.
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

I thank you for your swift reply I will first defend my stance before attacking yours then rebuild my argument. First, there is not much to rebuild or defend as you failed to engage with too many of my points. In which I explained how taking a view of both science and god you can still use logic to come to the conclusion that the earth as we know it is 10 000 years old as you have not engaged with my points they still stand. You spent the bulk of your argument protecting Carbon dating. Now the only problem I had with this was the simplicity of which you showed this complex process and pointed that out. in your first paragraph, you tried to use my source against me but I was never questioning the given date of your Temple/House thing but merely the margin of error saying that sure the estimated date is 11 000 but with the margin of error that number could drop quite drastically. With the comment on the Atom Bombs, it was merely to clear up the misrepresentation you gave that carbon dating anything up to the present is accurate and in fact it isn't. So in your opinion, i may not have discounted the evidence but I have placed it under scrutiny showing that your evidence could still fall into the timeline I have placed being the first settlement after God steps out giving us control of our own future giving us a finished Earth a fully created Earth. but it's not your opinion here it's our voters who I gave the courtesy of being somewhat cognitively able to see that before the Neolithic Era the human race was not in control we were simple hunter-gatherer apes. before the neolithic era, i gave our voters and you the assumption of a common knowledge that before then the world was controlled not by us but by the ice ages that hit, by the earthquakes that came, by the predators mindlessly hunting to survive. I have shown a Theory that is believable by all for the age and timeline of our world. I have not questioned how long the matter of this world has been present because that has been worked by god and we can only measure the lifetime of something once it has finished being created for example a Baby you doing measure its age from conception but from birth it just so happened it took god time to create the majesty we call earth. this is a different viewpoint that I haven't heard in any of these debates and one that I have found most convincing. So, please.
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

First, I don't think you put forth any evidence supporting your claim, besides the story behind it. Next, I'll use your own source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... "The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques." Therefore, we can trust the dates of Goblekli Tepe (again, BURIED at 10,000 years ago and these are only the newest layers). The comment in the same source about the atomic bombs was mis-used above I believe. They are saying Carbon dating of future artifacts will be problematic due to the use of these bombs. Not that the data of older artifacts will be effected. Furthermore, how would the testing of these in Russia, the US, and use in Japan affect the material laying under the ground, buried 10,000 years ago, in Turkey? Again, from your own source, using simple algebra, you can figure out the age of an artifact to 50,000 years accurately by counting the amount of Carbon. https://en.wikipedia.org... points to cave paintings 3x or more times older than the newest layers in Goblekli Tepe. In my opinion, you have not done enough to discount Carbon dating of things 20,000 years or younger, nor have you presented any actual evidence supporting your claim. For example, "before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god". You didn't say why this should be believed. You didn't even cite the common genealogies and ages of people to derive a specific age of the earth. Nor the stuff about the sun getting brighter and what this would mean for the Earth > 50,000 years ago, etc...
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

before I start my argument I will quickly rebut two points of your opening. first on carbon dating and its accuracy. you have stated that it is 'very accurate for dates 15,000 years through present' there are problems throughout this statement. That carbon dates are still accurate in the modern times but because of the atomic bombs our recent ancestors have decided to drop the past thousand years have skewed the number of radioactive elements and thus carbon dating because carbon dating is based on the half-life of radioactive carbon-14 which is 5730 years and then measuring how much of the carbon is present. this causes our second problem with you statement as a margin of error will occur with such a technique which is +/- hundreds even thousands of years depending upon how old the sample is and the quality of the sample. So naturally from here I thought I would try to find the margin of error on the "academically accurate source" you listed. The link took me to a site that is clearly a source of academic excellence as I am bombarded with click baited thumbnails about Hollywood rumours and cat fights clearly where I want to look when finding unbias and clear evidence. On to my arguments The Earth as we know it is under humanities control we manipulate all the natural forces of evolution with our knowledge and free will when did we start to do this around 10 000 years ago the beginning of the Neolithic era this is when the last great ice age ended and the natural forces of evolution took a step back and humanity broke free expanding across the world creating what we call earth. so i and debating on the premise that yes the matter used to make us may have been ancient but everything before 10 000 years ago was under full control of nature and god as he created the world in which we could live it is only 10 000 years ago that he has finished his creation and given us our free will to colonise it. before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god. before the neolithic era, the world was still being formed it has had extinction after extinction as god resets his creation not approving with what he is creating for us he had used ice ages meteors volcanoes the works all to get the world into a place that he found acceptable for us to live and thrive in. since the Neolithic time we have taken over evolution in control and used our ability to collectively learn and communicate ideas to govern our own futures with free will given to us by god and this is the point where the earth was born. not how long what now makes up the earth existed but how old what we call the earth is. which by this account is 10 000 years old. I await your responce. References Carbon Dating - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... Neolithic period - https://www.britannica.com... era before the neolithic - http://www.livescience.com...
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

I think a recent finding puts a date of more than 10,000 years by itself. There are many other things I can cite, but in my opinion, this is strong enough on it's own. Carbon dating does have it's limitations, however is very accurate for dates 15,000 years old through present. At a site in Turkey, Goblekli Tepe, ancients buried their monuments in the ground. We can date when the monument was buried (about 10,000 years ago) which means it was constructed before this date. How far back cannot be stated, but this is a huge point against the Earth being less than 10,000 years old. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

I am a non-theist but I would like to try and logically explain why this belief may be held as the moot states "that the earth is older than 10 000 years" As no definitions have been set and neither has any structure ill take the first round as acceptance and allow you to set your case next round. I am also assuming that we are debating under common definitions eg Earth: the planet we live one now older: been around for a longer period of time etc. I await your opening
The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 years old.

I took the con view in high school (The Answers in Genesis, Creationist view of the Earth's age is correct). This was fun and I would now like to take the other side. While I am a Christian, I do not personally believe the conclusion of the age of the Earth was correct. Forewarning, I will be using carbon dating for a big piece of this evidence.
Atheism is more plausible than Theism

In my closing arguments I'd like to try to draw some of the threads of this debate together and see if we can reach some conclusions. First, what reasons have we been presented to think that God exists? JohnSmythe's first point was that the Gospels made predictions that came true. But then I responded to this point by listing 8 reasons why we should not believe what's written in the Gospels, and he did not address any of these. Based on this I can only assume that he accepts the truth of the Gospels by a blind leap of faith, not by a rational investigation. So I think we can very easily dismiss this argument. In his second main point, he made a rather extraordinary claim - that it would have been "impossible" for life to develop naturally all by itself. As Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The burden of proof rests on his shoulders to defend this claim, since he has so boldly made the assertion. We are far more reasonable to take a more modest stance on this issue, that being, we just are not exactly sure how life came into existence. Science is working on the problem, and at this point, it is question that is completely open to all kinds of possibilities. So I think this argument should likewise be thrown out until he can offer some better reasons to support it. His third main argument was a very weak and poorly grounded case for moral realism, that I easily refuted in the last round. He never even offered any support for any of the premises he listed, and his conclusion, even if true, does absolutely nothing to make theism anymore plausible than atheism, which is, after all, the subject of this particular debate. Even if he could show that objective morality exists, it wouldn't follow logically from this that God exists. Atheism is not necessarily in conflict with moral realism. Here is a much more complete picture of the latest statistics of what modern philosophers believe: http://commonsenseatheism.com... Note that 73% of philosophers are atheists, and so, without even knowing anymore information, we can infer that a number of them must be moral realists. I presented an opening case for atheism that has gone completely unrefuted throughout this debate. JohSmythe completely dropped my first argument. With respect to the second, he said that God isn't necessarily outside of time, but when I explained how absurd that is, he dropped that point as well, and then dishonestly accused me of insulting him personally, which I never did. As for the question of morality, I stand by my opening argument, which logically concludes with the non-existence of God. In conclusion, Lau Tzu said in "The Art of War" that you should choose your battles wisely. JohnSmythe obviously was not prepared for this debate format but he chose to accept the terms anyway. He was unable to properly fit his arguments into the allotted time, and it cost him the debate.
Atheism is more plausible than Theism

1. Raising the bar. According to Eusebius and Aristo of Pella both, thousands of Christians, aware of this prophecy, fled Jerusalem while many Jews were holding out for divine intervention. They got the best kind of "new information they didn`t already know" when their lives were saved. 2. Actually, there aren`t infinite possibilities. The law of excluded middle means there are two: P. Life originated with RNA.¬P. Life did not originate with RNA. If ¬P, we should expect to see a form of life, any form of life based on anything other than RNA. There is not one. So I am forced to choose as an origin for life between a form of life which has literally zero empirical evidence, having never been seen by anyone, and one that I`ve spoken with, has made me happier, and whose existence is testified by sight or other senses by thousands of people of unimpeachable character (Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Reneé Descartes, Kurt Gödel et. Al). You call the thing you believe in with zero evidence from the scientific method "Non-RNA life", I call it "God", but epistemologically, they are the same. 3.I'll let Michael Huemer address your argument against moral realism:"Objection 1: We need reasons for believing our ethical intuitions, or the faculty of intuition in general, to be reliable. Otherwise, intuitions cannot justify our moral beliefs. Reply: What happens if we apply the principle generally: 'We need positive reasons for trusting appearances'? Then we need positive reasons for trusting sense perception, memory, introspection, even reason itself. The result is global skepticism. Nothing can be accepted until we first give a positive reason for trusting that kind of belief. But we cannot give such a reason without relying on sense perception, memory, introspection, reason--or in general, on some source. Hence, we shall never be able to trust anything. Of course, this means we also could not trust the reasoning of this paragraph. We have stipulated that general philosophical skepticism is not our concern. We are not interested here in discussing the view that no one can know moral truths because no one can know anything whatsoever.""Objection: [We cannot check our intuitions against anything else, therefore they are unreliable.] Reply: First, the objection sounds suspiciously like Objection 1. If we take beliefs to be prima facie justified on the basis of appearances, then it is unclear why intuitive beliefs should be thought to require checking, in the absence of any positive grounds for doubting them. If, on the other hand, we reject this conception of prima facie justification, then it is unclear how one is supposed to check anything. If belief A has no prima facie justification, and belief B also has no prima facie justification, then one can not legitimately 'check on' or 'verify' A's truth by appealing to B. Unless we are allowed to take something for granted, nothing can count as verifying anything."