BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Euthanasia

Sorry for the very late reply. I do understand the part where you're coming from. The fact that its a decision of life or death. You can either chose to end your suffering now or wait longer and see where the world would take you. Its just like a leap into the unknown and maybe for some, it may turn out to be the best jump of their lives. But I'm standing at the point where I see euthanasia as being a way to let lose of your suffering. The whole reason why people do take matters into their own hands to end their lives is to escape reality and the pain that they are enduring. I personally would rather end my life without feeling the worst of the worst pain because maybe, just maybe, my spirit will be happier. People have their own rights and they are entitled to their own opinions. Referring back to your story of the woman who had cancer, the doctor doesn't only decide for themselves. It's a big process where lots of people talk and come together to form one judgment. Not everyone will listen to the doctor because we are entitled to speak our own minds and think for ourselves. People who do undergo euthanasia have an incurable condition that is tested and come to a conclusion that there is nothing they could do. All you can possibly do for a person in pain is just give them pain killers, but how long will that pain killer last? Many people feel useless and unwanted once they come to a stage where they can't even help themselves. They decide that this is the best option. The best way for them to end their lives with dignity and love for themselves. Dying is not a crime especially when you have come to a stage where self love means nothing to you. Would you live a life hating yourself more than anything else. That's what pain does to you and we personally cannot say that euthanasia is right or wrong because we aren't the ones who eat, sleep and breathe on a sick bed in the hospital each day in pain, not knowing what will happen next. Euthanasia protects self hood and dignity for ourselves. Think of euthanasia not as a way to kill someone but to help someone from their misery. Here's an example. Recently I saw a dog whose leg was broken that later turned into an infection. That infection spread to its entire body where its fur changed from being a beautiful brunette to fur less. The dog had infections everywhere. All the vets that it was taken to said their was nothing they could do, the condition went from bad to worse, nor could the dog even walk and eat. The best decision for that dog was to put him down, to end all his suffering. The poor dog that couldn't even walk around and barely ate anything was put down. Don't think of it as a bad thing but think of it as the dog was relieved from its pain. It died a painless death than one where it was hit by a car and then bleed out to death. Just one of the many instances that euthanasia has been applied. But euthanasia is not as simple as black and white, there is also grey.
Legalizing Euthanasia

Let's talk about your first point, that a person should have the power to control their death. While I do agree with you that autonomy is important, personal autonomy has its limits. Rights need protection but must be balanced against responsibilities and restrictions if we are to be truly free. We are not free to do things that limit or violate the reasonable freedoms of others. No person makes the decision to end his or her life in isolation. There are others who are affected: friends and relatives left behind, and the healthcare staff involved in the decision-making process. A person's decision to take his or her own life can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of others. There may be guilt, anger or bitterness felt by those left behind. Personal autonomy is never absolute. The effect of personal decisions on others now living or in future generations must be considered. Second, you failed to recognize my argument that doctor predictions are inaccurate and inconsistent. This supersedes the basis of your entire argument -- how can people choose to end their life without knowing how much time they have left to live? To answer this question, I would like to introduce you to Jeannette Hall, a resident of King City, Oregon, who was diagnosed with inoperable colon cancer at the age of 55. She was told that she had six months left to live, and could choose between chemotherapy to fight cancer and euthanasia to end her life. But while lying in the hospital waiting to end her life, Hall's doctor convinced her to refuse death and "see her child graduate and get married." Fifteen years later, Hall is now cured of cancer and celebrating her 70th birthday with her son, who has since graduated and married. By legalizing euthanasia, you are, as I previously stated, essentially handing a patient a "loaded gun." This is extremely dangerous when you consider the fact that survival is underestimated and overestimated very frequently. Additionally, you argued that the right to die should be a fundamental human right. However, you chose to disregard the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court case Washington v. Glucksberg held that a right to euthanasia in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause, and therefore not a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom. So when you say that people have the right to leave our world at their leisure, you are wrong. Moreover, you assert that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are like government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation. Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from immoral doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer.
Legalizing Euthanasia

DIGNITY. PRIDE. PRESTIGE. Just the few words that rush in mind when you think about euthanasia. I do believe people are born for a reason and everything happens to lead to that particular point. Yet having said that, people do have their own choices in life and they have their rights to leave this world whenever they feel it is too much for them. Whenever we fail to contribute money to all the different famine relief efforts do we count that as murder, when the people die from starvation. When we fail to donate blood or an organ to someone dying don't we count as an accessory to murder. No. We're too busy seeing and picking up on all the other things that happen in this world. Everyone has their rights to ending their life because at the end of the day its their life not yours. It's just like saying you see your parents suffering so much in pain each day and you immediately say no to putting them down. How can you stand there and say as a person that everything is ok. Maybe the whole reason why people are against euthanasia is for themselves. They are afraid of letting someone go. But at the end of the day, if you love someone you have to let them go, in order for your happiness and most importantly the person who was in pain.
Legalizing Euthanasia

Death is final. For people battling illness, one day they may get out of bed and be ready to give up, and the next day they may be prepared to fight. This is just part of the human condition. But legalizing euthanasia would be like giving someone a loaded gun. On a day when they"re depressed or in pain " like when they"ve just received a terminal diagnosis " they may just pull the trigger. First, euthanasia undermines medical research. This is true because one of the major driving forces behind the exceptional medical advances of this century has been incentives to develop treatments for previously fatal illnesses, and the eagerness to alleviate unmanageable symptoms. But when the focus changes from curing the condition to killing the individual with the condition, this whole process is threatened. According to Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Hospital, "When there is an increasing acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, it threatens the very dramatic progress made in the management of these diseases, especially over the last two decades." Rather than being employed to care and console, funds are being diverted to fuel the strategy of 'search and destroy'. Medical research is essential if medicine and other pharmaceutical drugs are to advance further. If euthanasia is legalized, we will suffer a major setback in medical research and technology. Second, doctor predictions are not always accurate and often inconsistent, which can lead to less informed patient decision making in deciding deaths. A study done by the University of Chicago Medical Center found that for the estimated amount of time left to live for terminally ill patients, 20% of doctor predictions were accurate, within 33% of actual survival, 63% of predictions were too optimistic, meaning patients passed away before the predicted date, and 17% of predictions were too pessimistic, meaning patients passed away after the predicted date. Overall, the study reported that doctors overestimate survival by a factor of 5.3. This is important because the whole concept of euthanasia revolves around the patient making the decision to end his or her life, but one cannot make an informed decision without a precise forecast of the time they have left to live. In other words, a prediction that is too optimistic can lead to resentment by patients later on, and a prognosis that is too pessimistic is overwhelming and brutal. Because of the inaccurate lifetime predictions of doctors and damage to medical advances that legalizing euthanasia would create, it is imperative that we do not legalize euthanasia. I ask you to consider the valuable lives of American citizens when you make your decision and vote. Let"s live with dignity.
Gaming in School

Thank you for your arguments. I shall now respond. (Sorry for the late response, had lots of schoolwork to do)To mention your first point, I personally believe that video games are a GREAT tool. Games such as Pokémon really helped me to read as a kid. I NEVER deny video games are a good thing. As I said before, I believe they're great. I even think games such as Minecraft and Portal can be used to teach the kids...under proper school supervision.However, what Pro is arguing for (as stated in R1) is that kids should be able to play games during RECESS. He never states that they should be used in the general school setting. No amount of work on the computer playing a game can compare to the benefits of exercising, running around, and just being active. Specific programs (i.e. typing programs) are good in teaching kids, but most kids prefer to play actual games (such as the previously mentioned Minecraft) rather than sit through a typing lesson. So they would naturally want to play Portal/Minecraft instead of a typing game like that. As well, if kids want to game instead of play recess, then they are shutting themselves out from other people in the school.The idea about the schools using games for education, or "free time", however, could work. But the school would need to provide the systems that can run the games at a decent FPS/setting and the games themselves, which could end up costing them lots of money that they could be using for other departments. I guess it's up to the school as to how they want to use their money.As to playing games during recess, as my opponent points out, some children don't enjoy being active or running around. To this, I say, refer to my R2 argument as I have stated some kids can just talk to the other kids or watch them play. If they end up feeling left out of a game or playing, then they should just proceed to another group where people can talk or everyone is not playing. Kids like this will also find comfort in a seesaw or a swing, as it doesn't require much physical work and they can enjoy it with only one friend or by themselves, if they feel the need to be separated from many people. And after starting the swing, you can just relax, really; it doesn't require much work. But now I'm heading off topic.Just because kids don't LIKE being active doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T be. I don't like eating veggies sometimes, but I have to to keep up my health. In the same way kids shouldn't be totally reclusive and just play games during recess, which is normally a time for kids to be active and talk with their friends. By allowing video games during recess, a LOT of kids will bring their systems, and a lot of kids will sit out and play them instead of talking with others, or playing, as well as the problems above. This, along with the information I stated above, are all good reasons as to why kids shouldn't be allowed to bring/play games during recess.Thank you for your time and the debate.
Gaming in School

We have discussed in class about Procedural Writing, and I've chosen Benefits of Gaming in School. I have a few reasons to be for the argument, as first of all, gaming increases Hand-Eye Co-ordination, as widely known on the Internet. I can agree to this, as It actually helped me before in writing/typing faster. My second reason would be creativity (Looking at you, Notch) and I can confirm this as well, as I've been getting lots of ideas to draw, create things (cardboard and games) and it made me feel more relieved to get it all out. I've made a quiz for my classmates, and most of them felt the same. And my last reason would be entertainment. Yes, that's pretty much the opposite of what schools are like, you say, it would give the students too much to get disoriented, you say. Well, how about not exactly a lot of games whenever you want, but more of sessions of gaming, or like free time, whenever people are really bored/stressed by the events happening in that classroom. So that is my opinion on why gaming should be allowed in school. -Way2CheesE Even though some people think that kids should not be able to bring video games to school, I think kids should get the privilege of doing so. During recess, kids should be able to play video games. Some kids do not enjoy running around playing activities and being active. They will still get their exercise during school in P.E. Gaming is also good because it improves your hand eye coordination. It helps your typing skills, for taking online tests and assessments. Gaming should also help you focus on other tasks. If you know you will be able to game after you finish your work, then you will want to get it done without dilly-dallying so you can get to gaming. You might think it will be messy, but I make sure that I have good quality work. -bboby
Gaming in School

It is a true case that some kids are more responsible than others, and will not lose their devices. However, there will always be the few that will.For the kids that don't enjoy playing or running during recess, they could enjoy watching their friends play or talking to them. I knew as a kid I preferred the swing as I could be by myself a lot. As I'm still introvert-ish to this day, I feel that early tendencies lead to effects later on in life. If the kids are able to play video games during recess, we can end up with lots of them being introverts and not working well in groups. (See point 2)
Gaming in School

I accept this debate, and wish to argue that video games have no place in school (at least during recess).As this is outside and (conventionally) no power sources are nearby, assume I am talking about portable game systems (3DS, PSVITA, etc.).1. Increases Likelihood of Device Getting Stolen/Forgetting the DeviceLots of kids tend to be at least semi-forgetful of their possessions, especially younger ones. The simplest problem is that they may set the system down to talk to a friend or play a game, and they may forget the system, and then it will become lost. This frustrates the parents as well as the child.As well, if a student leaves a system unattended, a less-than-honest student could swipe it. Then the thief would have a new game system to play, while the original owner will be left upset that their precious device got stolen.Then, the parents may blame the school, and could result in many accusations or even lawsuits against the school, costing them time and money which they could be using for more important reasons.2. Increases Potential for Isolation and not Participating in a GroupIf the school promotes the bringing of portable video games to the campus during recess, then children will want to play their video games and not interact. Thus, the school is increasing the potential for isolation of students from others, and giving them a future where they are not good with others. Thus the school would be raising them improperly, as children should be taught to work cooperatively and not by themselves.Children need to not be taught isolation as it could hamper their effectiveness in future group projects, whether it be during future school years or a career. And it would be the school's fault.3. Opens Up Opportunities for Distraction in ClassMany kids in high school (or even middle school) are tempted to just pull out their cell phone in the middle of a class. If children were allowed to play video games, they could be tempted to play their game during class. Playing games (or doing other topics) during class decreases the amount of material they learn and can severely impact their quiz/test grades.This summarizes my arguments. I thank opponent for reading it. Good luck in R2.
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

I am sorry if you feel I am being unfair. I really am. It just seems like there is a lot of emotion in what you are saying, And you haven"t presented any solid facts. I am all for hearing your side and listening to your argument, But so far I feel you have none. You are correct about my position. There is more to my faith than that, Though, And I would be willing to discuss that :) As for evidence, I just need FACTS. I need solid proven, Seen facts. I do not believe you can give these to me, And therefore do not believe I will be convinced. There is one question I have asked almost every time, And it has been avoided-how can you prove evolution is true, If no one has ever witnessed macro evolution?
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

I have spent a lot of time outlining why I believe Evolution to be true. I cannot convince someone who has no interest in being convinced, I can only present the evidence and allow them to decide. Here is what I know about your position: 1. You believe in Microevolution 2. You do not believe in Macroevolution 3. God created the Universe in six 24 hour days 4. On the seventh day He rested Did I miss anything? What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that Evolution is true? Do you have the same level of scrutiny for the beliefs you currently hold? In other words, Do you have more evidence that your claim is true than I do that mine is true? You have yet to give a defense of your position, But are demanding that I give you more. This is unfair.
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

In your quote from Greydon Square, You wrote: "Because our lifespan's too short to observe". This is 100% true. Our life span is too short to observe evolution, Therefore, What facts do we have to prove they are true? To become clearer on your view, Do you believe God used evolution, Or that evolution came from nothing? You said: "I will also 100% echo that something cannot come from nothing. " If you believe this, I would like to understand more how you think evolution came to be. I am proving Creation is true, And to back up the facts :) I too, Look forward to our respectful and engaging talk. :)
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

I believe Evolution is a fact, And that it has met its burden of proof. I will define terms also: Oxford Dictionary online Microevolution: "Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, Especially over a short period. " Macroevolution: "Major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. " I agree with you on microevolution, Assuming you mean the same thing. We can study changes made within species, Such as dogs. I have a small 5lb Yorkie Poo. She would not survive in the wild, Which is why we don"t see Yorkie Poo"s naturally occurring in the wild. We even figured out how to breed certain characteristics into a dog, Hence why there is a bulldog. I know you asked not to use Microevolution as an example, But ultimately that"s all Macroevolution is. Greydon Square put it like this: "First of all, Microevolution been proven In the same way that sound waves let you listen to music And macroevolution is the system of change At or above the level of the species inflicted with change That's microevolution on a grand scale we can't even word Because our life span's too short to observe" This short debate will not let me explain in any detail why evolution is true, But I hope that I can at least help you think about this topic a little deeper than before. I used to be a Creationist myself. After reading Jerry Coyne"s "Why Evolution is True", I changed my mind. The evidence is there, We just have to look at it. Evolution seeks to understand how organisms change overtime from simple to the more complex. I believe in Evolution, But I do not believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang seeks to understand biogenesis. The beginning of everything. Evolution is observational, With explanitory power. I will not be defending the Big Bang, And by the way, I agree with your follow up questions about this subject. I will also 100% echo that something cannot come from nothing. That, In my opinion, Would be absurd. Lastly, I need to know exactly what you will be defending. This should not just be a case of proving Evolution wrong, But proving Creation is true, And better than the alternative. This is my intent anyway, To prove Evolution is better than the alternative. I am looking forward to a respectful and productive talk.
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

As a Creationist I believe in 'Microevolution', But not 'Macroevolution'. Let's break that down. Microevolution is the changing of species. (EX. = Galapagos Finches) Macroevolution is the changing of kinds. (EX. = Ape to a Human) There is evidence for Microevolution, And anyone saying otherwise would need to research a lot more. Now for Macroevolution. I'm going to ask you to make a rose. Can you do it? Of course not. You cannot make something out of nothing. It's like the Mona Lisa just appeared, And didn't have a painter. Some people will claim it is because they do not have millions of years to do so. No one on earth is millions of years old, So how could they have seen apes turning into humans? What proof is there for that? Lastly, Evolutionists claim there was a big bang. What proof is there? Where did the star dust from the big bang come from? This is the topic I want to debate. Please refrain from using Microevolution as an example, Because that is not the topic at hand. Please be respectful, And not rude or mocking. Thank you.