BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eliminate Tran's Fat in our Schools

My sources were meant for further Knowledge. My opponent failed to follow the rules stated in the first round ( Round three is for cross examination and not round two). Yes I agree with my opponent when he states that LDL was reduced by 25% but this was only accomplished due to the reduction of Tran's fat use by Fast Food restaurants http://latimesblogs.latimes.com.... My opponent states that trans fats "can reduce risk factors associated with heart disease, diabetes and obesity". However this is rather the opposite of Tran's Fat effect on the human body. if I must reference again, Tran's fat increases the risk of hearth disease, diabetes and yes including diabetes http://www.heart.org.... I stated that 75% of kids will be obese by 2015 not to indicate or educate you on the future but to simply show you the rate of obese kids in the United States. I would also disagree with my opponent when he stated that I did not clearly define the meaning of Tran's Fat. Tran's Fat as I mentioned earlier is a type of Fat or that lowers your good cholesterol while increasing the bad cholesterol in the body. It is used mainly for additional flavor. seeing that my opponent has no clear taught towards the idea of banning trans fat in our school system, We must see that this debate is over as of right now. For future reference: Google.com http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cdc.gov...... http://www.medicinenet.com...... http://www.webmd.com...... http://www.tfx.org.uk......
Con sucks.

Firstly I haven't mentioned that you suck on any item.But my point is that you took the statement your way so I can take it in my way and add that whether con sucks or not depends on the topic of the debate.So,your view will be pointless and I won the debate.And if I cannot do this then its the responsibility of the instigator to elaborate the debate in the introduction. Secondly I told you may or may not suck that is not our point.I would like to say that in a debate both have the right to raise point against each other otherwise it will just be called a discussion.So,if you can raise your point against me so I can also raise it against you.
Middle school students should be required to do community service

"Now I ask my opponent this: where is YOUR evidence and YOUR sources. You still have not brought up any main points, and it's not a good time to do that in the rebuttal speech." "Because of these reasons I urge a vote for PRO" "Thank you." I have a feeling this was inspired by the comments section of my previous debate, but when you're right you're right. I had my final round written out and when I reread it I saw that it was just the two of us throwing opinions at each other with nothing to support them, nor did I even attempt to affirm my side of the resolution, and for these reasons I concede. Cheers for the debate.
Middle school students should be required to do community service

\\Community service is often used as a punishment for people who have broken the law. He might make it sound good for the children with his list of supposed benefits, but, in essence, it's a punishment. // First off, yes I do have evidence . http://news.google.com... (I know it's peer pressure, but still it teaches good values, I think the article mentions that too. .. ) Second of all, if the kids do community service when they're young, it may be a detterent for commiting crimes in the future, for example if a student does community service and dosn't like it he would be less inclined to commit a crime for the reason that he doesn't like community service. \\\Kids are very impressionable, and might become obsessed with and devote themselves to something they will have no interest in after a few years (does anyone remember pokemon cards? ). My opponent's resolution calls for him to explain why it would be more beneficial for kids to partake in community service at this age rather than an older one. Surely it would be far more beneficial when the child has a better idea of what he/she might want to pursue. /// Everyone knows that it's better for younger people to have ideas on what jobs they might want. This way they do not have one year of high-school left and they don't know which subjects to take and what college to go to. My reasoning for defining this debate to 'middle-school students' is because it gives the student more time to choose. The more time the better. If the child does go into something he/she truly doesn't have a passion for, there's still time. Wheras if this ws done in high-school he/she would have barely any time to adapt to a new passion! (Ahhh the good ol' days where pokemon cards were worth more than cash. .. . good times my friend, good times. .. ) \\\My opponent appears to have thrown "tolerance" in there just to make his title look fancier. /// Ok that was uncalled for. I put "tolerance" in the title because if a student works with less fortunate students of the same or lower age he will learn to tolerate people with less wealth as him. \\\Compulsory labor is not volunteerism. /// Technically, they are not volunteering for community service in general, but they CHOOSE to volunteer to a certain organization, that is volunteerism. They get to choose what cause they support. ----------- Now I ask my opponent this: where is YOUR evidence and YOUR sources. You still have not brought up any main points, and it's not a good time to do that in the rebuttal speech.
Middle school students should be required to do community service

-1. Gives kids good values My opponent claims that community service gives kids good values, but has not provided any evidence to back this up. Community service is often used as a punishment for people who have broken the law. He might make it sound good for the children with his list of supposed benefits, but, in essence, it's a punishment. What he proposes could lead to kids growing spiteful... That's hardly a good value? -2. Teaches tolerance, job skills, and the benefit of sacrifice. My opponent argues that it could help kids figure out what they want to do with their lives, and I agree completely. But, would it not be more successful in helping them with this if it were done at an older age. Kids are very impressionable, and might become obsessed with and devote themselves to something they will have no interest in after a few years (does anyone remember pokemon cards?). My opponent's resolution calls for him to explain why it would be more beneficial for kids to partake in community service at this age rather than an older one. Surely it would be far more beneficial when the child has a better idea of what he/she might want to pursue. My opponent appears to have thrown "tolerance" in there just to make his title look fancier. -3. It strengthens the child's family and their community. Compulsory labor is not volunteerism.
Middle school students should be required to do community service

1. Gives kids good values If kids are required to do community service, they are being told that it's good to help people in need and it's good to help out in the community. It also teaches them to help contribute to their community. By volunteering, kids and teens learn what it means to make and keep a commitment. They learn how to be on time for a job, do their best, and be proud of the results. But they also learn that, ultimately, we're all responsible for the well-being of our communities. 2. Teaches tolerance, job skills, and the benefit of sacrifice. Community service can help young people decide on their future careers. Are they interested in the medical field? Hospitals and clinics often have teenage volunteer programs. Do they love politics? Kids can work on the real campaigns of local political candidates. Learning to work as a team member, taking on leadership roles, setting project goals — these are all skills that can be gained by volunteering and will serve kids well in any future career. Community service can help young people decide on their future careers. Are they interested in the medical field? Hospitals and clinics often have teenage volunteer programs. Do they love politics? Kids can work on the real campaigns of local political candidates. Learning to work as a team member, taking on leadership roles, setting project goals — these are all skills that can be gained by volunteering and will serve kids well in any future career. By giving up a toy to a less fortunate child, a child learns that sometimes it's good to sacrifice. Cutting back on recreation time to help clean up a beach tells kids that there are important things besides ourselves and our immediate needs. 3. It strengthens the child's family and their community. Volunteerism is a great way for families to have fun and feel closer. But many people say they don't have the time to volunteer after fulfilling work and family commitments. If that's the case, try rethinking some of your free time as a family. You could select just one or two projects a year and make them a family tradition (for example, making and donating gift baskets to care facilities for the elderly around the holidays). Organizations and agencies that use volunteers are providing important services at low or no cost to those who need them. When a community is doing well as a whole, its individuals are better off, too. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. " -Margaret Mead I will expand on these points in the next speech.
Middle school students should be required to do community service

Resolved that Middle School STudents should be required to do community service Community Service: Required 5 hours per school year. (8th graders not required, only 6th and 7th) Rounds: 4 Voting period: 2 weeks Time to argue: 72 hours Argument Max: 8,000 characters Category: Society Spell Check Enabled Hope for a good debate, good luck!
Euthanasia

I fail to see how this is an effective argument, as my opponent answers all my questions with 'we can come up with the guidelines later'. These guidelines are the key to whether or not anyone can support it - would you support that just anyone could kill themselves without a reasonable explanation as to why they wish to do so? I'm gonna assume no, therefore we need guidelines before we can determine whether or not we support it. So I'm gonna ask my opponent some questions 1. Should there be age limit? If yes, what should the age limit be, and why are people under that given age not suitable to die with dignity? if no, is an 8 year old girl mature enough to die with dignity? 2. Should psychological diseases be a valid reason assisted suice? If yes, what about depression, which can lead a person to suicide thoughts. Suicide thoughts can be a sympton, not necessarily a rational wish. If no, what about patients who are diagnosed with Alzheimer's and know before hand that soon they're memory will be gone entirely, should they not be granted the wish to die with dignity?
Euthanasia

Of all the property rights that individual humans might possess, the most basic one is the property of life. One may have every bit of personal possessions taken away, but your life is still your own. That's what makes slavery such a horrendous crime. The slave owner takes away even that last vestige of property. If you accept the idea of individual lives being the property of each human, then each of us should have the right to do with it as we would with any other piece of property - keep it, guard it, or give it up. It's an idea that we already accept under certain circumstances. We've all heard the phrase "he gave up his life for his ______________(fill in the blank)". The phrase has no ambiguity about it. The person being described actually gave up his most precious possession, his life, for some noble cause and we usually highly praise him for his sacrifice. We accept, what amounts to a suicide, because it's for some fine purpose. If we can accept it for that, why can't we accept it for reasons that are equally important to the person contemplating the act? Now we can debate, at great length, about where the lines should be drawn. What's the minimum age, mental health status, etc. that a person must have before getting access to the pills, but those are really secondary arguments. We can come up with those guidelines later. We could start out by stating that every competent adult has the right of self determination. It wont be a new concept. Doctor assisted suicide has been in use for a number of years in several U.S. states as well as in a number of Western European nations and, at least within the U.S. there have been few, of any, reports of abuse. The issue, for me, is what gives another person the right to dictate to me, a competent adult, what I will do with my life?
Euthanasia

Every human being owns his or her life. It's the ultimate possession. Many have religious beliefs that claim that their lives are the property of their god or gods. Those individuals might decide to allow their deity to decide their ultimate fate, and it's their right to do so. Not everyone will agree with that and, for those that do not, there's no reason why competent individuals shouldn't have the right to determine their own ultimate fate. For those that are physically capable of it, suicide is an option but, for those that are physically incapable, euthanasia should be, in my opinion, an available alternative under certain circumstances. Competent adults who are experiencing extreme intractable and untreatable physical or mental anguish should be able to request their medical professional for euthanasia and that professional should be able to grant those rational requests that meet her professional and personal ethical standards. In my opinion, the medical profession should have, as its ultimate purpose, the relief of human suffering and while that usually is congruent with the preservation of life, there will be situations when that's not the case. For those patients, euthanasia should be one of the tools that can be made available. I thank Con for offering this debate and for her wise and compassionate perspectives.
Euthanasia

When a suspect arrives in court it's because he has ALREADY been charged with a crime. Only then are the details discussed. I'll stop the analogies if you will. We're debating the practice of euthanasia, pro or con. If Con supports the availability of euthanasia for competent adults with certain chronic or terminal medical conditions, then Con is actually taking a pro position, just not for everyone. I believe that alcoholic products should be legal. I'm pro legal alcohol consumption. That doesn't imply that I think it should be made available to ten year olds. How do we define what is rational? The legal standard is "what would a reasonable person consider to be rational". That's obviously a very subjective judgment but most people are able to separate irrational requests from rational ones. It's much like US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said when writing about pornography; that it was difficult to define but "I know it when I see it". A 17 year old boy's request to be euthanized because his girlfriend left him would be immediately identified as being irrational. I never said that all long term depression is untreatable. I said that there are a number of patients whose long term depression has proven to be untreatable and, if you check virtually any source discussing treatment of depression you'll find statements similar to "almost all cases are treatable or curable", the operative word being "almost". Con has raised a number of reasonable objections to legal euthanasia mostly dealing with where to draw the line but agrees with it as an option for competent adults with certain conditions. That's where I think the line should be drawn... for now. Why is it necessary to deny it for everyone while we're trying to figure out the rules for the relative few in the grey area? Would it not be reasonable to make it available for the vast majority of sufferers while we as a society hash out the details for the rest? We mustn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that children and incompetent adults suffering from incurable, painful, and terminally debilitating diseases diseases also deserve the relief of a comfortable and dignified death; but that it may never be available for incompetent adults who haven't left any previous instructions - too many chances for abuse. I think that providing it for children will, at the very least, require the permission of the parents and a court of law. In order to make those changes to public policy we're going to have to address some excruciatingly difficult ethical issues but, while we're doing that, let's provide relief for those we can.
Euthanasia

Before our would-be homeowners talk about the size, location, and cost of the prospective dwelling they first need to decide that they would like to build one. Having made that choice, they then flesh out the details. As I mentioned in the previous round, competency determinations are nothing new. We make them all the time for elders whose children wish to assume guardianship of, for minor children who want to be emancipated from their parents control, for criminal defendants who want to use incompetence as a defense, and for seriously ill patients who wish to have all medical treatment terminated against the advice of their doctors and/or family members. That last example is, effectively, also an example of currently acceptable euthanasia. Not being a professional I can't provide the exact details of the process, but I understand that it basically amounts to a judge appointing one or more medical or mental health professions to make the determination. A healthy 17, or 40 year old who requested euthanasia would still have to exhibit competence and stating that the reason for the request is, say, his girlfriend left him or boredom with life would be prima facie evidence of incompetence. Anyone requesting that service from a medical professional should have to provide a rational reason for the request; and the professional could only dispense the requested medication if the request conformed to both the moral code of the professional and the guidelines of her profession. Con seems to believe that having a psychological disease automatically makes that person incompetent. I don't agree. Certainly some illnesses have that effect, but not all. Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, David Bohn (quantum physicist), the astronaut Buzz Aldrin, are just a few among many who have suffered from severe depression and were certainly fully competent and capable of rational decision making. There are a number of unfortunate patients whom have suffered through years of deep depression that has proven to be untreatable by counseling, drugs, surgery, and shock treatment. These patients may have a very rational reason for euthanasia as an alternative to a lifetime of misery. What right do we have to deny them that relief? I would like Con to answer the following question: Would you support a legal system that allowed voluntary euthanasia limited strictly to adult, competent patients with incurable diseases whose symptoms include untreatable and intractable pain such as terminal cancer or rabies; or extreme reductions in the quality of life such as ALS, Alzheimer's, etc? We are, I think, debating whether or not euthanasia is an acceptable alternative, not how that alternative will be administered - are we not? If Con answers my question in the affirmative, we're agreeing that euthanasia is an acceptable treatment. We're only, possibly, disagreeing about it's administration.
Euthanasia

It is very reasonable to discuss these principles first, and that is what I suggest we will be doing in this debate. We are discussing whether or not euthanasia should be legal, and in order to do that we need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages with it. I have presented some disadvantages, and since we are not the politicians making these decisions the only thing we can do is convince each other. We are not discussing windows of a house, we are talking about something much more important and fundamental than windows. We are discussing the size of the house, the location and we are talking about the cost of the house - a few VERY important decisions that need to be made before you start building the house. The first answer my opponents gives me is that every person wanting assisted suicide should be have his or hers competence evaluated. I would like to ask how this would be done, in what way could one determine whether or not a patient is competent enough to decide their own fate? I would then like to ask my opponent if he or she thinks it is rational and morally right to help a perfectly healthy, young person with assisted suicide, simply because that is his or hers wish? If there was a person, perfectly functional, mentally healthy who was tired of life at an age of 40, would it be morally right to help them? Then my opponent says that a psychological disease should not be a denial, unless the patient is incompetent. People with depression sometimes don't know it themselves, people around them have no clue. There are people who committed suicide and left the people around them shocked, because they saw that person as a happy person living his life. These people are obviously competent, since they fooled every person around them, however would you say that they are mentally stable enough to make this decision for themselves?
Euthanasia

Whenever we"re considering the establishment of a new social policy, it seems reasonable to first decide on the overall principle we"re supporting and then work out the details of how to implement that policy. It seems counter intuitive to reverse that process " sort of like designing the type of windows to install before deciding to build a house. For this debate I would think that the first decision that needs to be made is whether or not there should be a social policy that would allow the practice of euthanasia for competent individuals and, having determined that, work out the details of implementing the policy that would address the legitimate concerns that Con has raised. The key ingredient for implementation is "competence". According to USLegal.com, competency is defined as "Competency refers to the mental ability to understand problems and make decisions". Anyone who desires euthanasia should be required to show that they are, in fact, a competent individual. The details of how that would be accomplished are far too complex to be covered within this debate format but it needs to be understood that we"ve been making that determination for many years in both legal and medical matters. In my opinion, competency should not be arbitrarily determined strictly by age. There are teenagers who exhibit a high degree of maturity as well as 40 year olds who exhibit none. Psychological diseases should not, in themselves, be a reason for denial, unless the disease has made the patient incompetent. Patients should be able to include in their advance directives, instructions requesting euthanasia in the event that they are declared incompetent such as would be the case with Alzheimer"s disease. The guiding principle behind all of my arguments is that all competent individuals should be allowed the maximum amount of freedom to determine their own fate, consistent with the principle of avoiding unnecessary harm to others. If such an individual, having considered all the pros and cons makes a rational decision to end his or her life and is physically incapable of committing suicide, euthanasia should be an available option.