BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

There is no honour in dying because you choose. Dying as a hero may be considered an honour but suicide is not one of them. It just means YOU made a bad choice and are trying to cover it up with another bad choice (suicide). The word "honour" means high respect and if you think that if you die, everybody will have respect for you, find another way to gain respect. Dying only puts you in a temporary negative spotlight. Freedom is a choice, not a right. Some people don't have it. Respect that.
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

I agree with you proposition - in some states. What about other majority states and countries? Suicide doesn't necessarily imply wrongdoing. According to NY Times study, suicide leaves a person with more honor. Dying in honor is better than leading an unmeaning life. And also, who says that euthanasia is signing a dead contract? Euthanasia is actually signing a "life choice...freedom contract," according to Dailymotion. Again I am saying this over and over. Freedom is our right.
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

But euthanasia is technically suicide in most cases except that their is a second party involved. Suicide is considered an act of felony in some states. (more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Freedom does not equal signing your own death contract. Freedom of choice means you have the right to choose your death but you cannot tell somebody else to help you with that. (freedom of choice definition: http://wiki.answers.com... )
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

First of all, lets not get in to religion. All your argument about god is simply irrelevant. Voters, proposition failed to realize the significance and the importance of freedom. A person CHOOSES to be put into death. It's not the doctor who murders that person. Imagine. Your freedoms are taken away little by little. Then the basic building block of America is invalid. The Bill of Rights. Declaration of Rights. A person has a right to possess a freedom and proposition is rejecting the truth.
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

The person certainly does not have the right to determine his/her own life because they did not determine their birth; God did. So why would they be able to have a right to determine their death? Dying will never make things better because it is not your choice, rather it is something that just happens like birth. If the person can determine when they die, why can't anybody else? It does not make a difference because nobody has that right to take away somebody's life, not even the person.
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

I would like to start off by quickly refuting my opponent's arguments. What proposition failed to realize was that euthanasia is carried out only when a person agrees to be put to death. Whatever the case is, a person has a right to determine his/her own life. My argument is freedom - which America promised to its citizens. If euthanasia is proved illegal, then that person has to live in agony and he/she can't even die. Sometimes, dying can make things better, especially if it is a choice.
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal

Euthanasia should not be illegal in ALL countries because it allows someone (the doctor in this case) to take away the life of another person. A person should not decide when their life ends because sometimes, they may make the wrong decision and it is similar to suicide. Except that someone else is helping that person suicide. It is an act of intentionally taking away you're own life. It is wrong because a person sometimes only wants to end their own life at that moment.
Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

The proposition on offer is that diametrically opposing statements such as (A & ~A) cannot be logically resolved as true, no matter the context. This debate stems from a statement made by our esteemed friend Galiban: ************************************ (((E ->D)^(E->C))->(A . B)) A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father. D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions. E = God's Justice. To simplify. (((C->B)^(D->A))->(A . B)) Because C and D are both true = A and B are both true. A is true because C is true. B is true because D is true. Does this better explain how diametrically opposing texts can be reconciled by context? ***************************************** It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic that the following two statements are diametric opposites: A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. Thus, they can be recatagorized as A and ~A, respectively. Galiban's conclusion in his "logical" argument is "(A . B)" or "A and B are both true." With our above recategorization, his conclusion becomes "A and ~A are both true." This is a logical impossibility. The conjunction is necessarily always false. Diametrically opposing statements cannot be logically resolved as true. AFFIRMED.
Idealism vs Materialism.

IDEALISM (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason b (1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real (2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable MATERIALISM : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter I will be arguing on the idealist side!
Pro is a Fool

6) Argument 1 is affirmed since Pro has continued trying to win this debate, though through increased silliness. Unfortunately for him, anything other than posting gibberish or something of a similar nature would show that he is making a move which requires a higher intelligence than that of a fool. 7) Pro's first "irrefutable evidence", though refutable, is actually quite a brilliant argument. Which is why it's refutable. lol. Ergo, he is not a fool. 8) <------- It's a smiley face! 9) What, he can be silly in the debate but I can't? Up yours! 10) Pro's last "irrefutable evidence" has already been dismissed. It is a common fallacy advanced by most people; a non sequitur. It does not follow that if Pro has less effective arguments in this debate that he is in-fact a fool. Conclusion: Pro has not properly established that he is a fool. Above all, I think he has made a wise decision by instigating a light-hearted debate. This world will begin solving it's problems the day it stops taking itself so seriously. =)
Pro is a Fool

Illegalcombatant mocks Cons arguments, Freedo is just soooooooooo STOOOOOPID. Con the idiot claims that a fool can't win a debate nor can a fool use a computer. Con has nothing to back this up but their own assertions. Illegal combatant is a fool and its looks like Freddo is as well. A fool can't win a debate eh ?, a fool can't use a computer eh ? I present clear irrefutable evidence that this claim is false.......... http://www.debate.org... With Cons foolish arguments shown foolish, lets look at the REAL evidence. R10) Illegalcombatant in the last round said "I look forward to Cons stupid, pointless and wrong argument, as I can't possibly lose this debate." Only a fool would set them self up to fall and thus be ridiculed R11) Illegal combatant acted foolishly by posting in Freedo profile telling them to hurry up, only just after Freedo had accepted the debate. [1] R12) Illegalcombatant is STILL referring to them self in the third person........ seriously what is this guys problem ? R14) Illegalcombatant missed R13) R15) Illegalcombatant has acted in a very poor manner, thus diminishing their chance of winning the debate, only a fool would do that. R16) This debate is silly, the creator of this debate is silly, participating in this debate is silly, thus Pro is a fool. "Fool = A silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense". Now ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, if this, and all of this is not enough to convince that the resolution is affirmed, I have one last point to make, one irrefutable argument that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that Illegal combatant is a fool and the argument is this, if you vote for Freedo, this means that Illegalcombatant wasn't able to convince you that they were a fool, despite the foolishness evident to all, if your going to vote for Freedo, Illegal combatant wasn't able to win a debate affirming their own foolishness ? This ladies and gentlebags is the most damming evidence of it all. Vote Pro..........or realize that Pro wasn't able to win this argument and thus is a fool and therefore.........Vote Pro. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org...
Pro is a Fool

Glad to take up another debate with Illegalcombatant. 1) All of Pro's points, even his supposedly random or silly ones, have been made with good and calculated intent at winning this debate. A fool would not. Ergo, Pro is not a fool. 2) Pro has won debates[1]. A fool would not be able to win debates. Ergo, Pro is not a fool. 3) The fact that I have better arguments in this debate is not an indicator that Pro is a fool. 4) Even if Pro acted foolishly, that does not mean he is a fool. I could write a whole debate in Spanish but that alone would not prove that I can't speak English. 5) If I were to take this debate it's semantical limits, which I don't particularly need to, someone who "lacks judgement or sense" would be incapable of using a computer. This was included in the definition of fool. Pro is using a computer. Ergo, Pro is not a fool. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org...
Pro is a Fool

Definitions Pro = The instigator of this debate, known as Illegalcombatant on DDO. Fool = A silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense I will now provide reasons in support of Illegalcombatant is indeed a fool. R1) Creating a debate where you have to support you are a fool is exactly what a fool would do, and that's exactly what Illegalcombatant is doing. R2) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." [1] Illegalcombatant has said there is no God, ergo is a fool R3) Illegalcombatant so far has referred to themselves in the third person, exactly what a fool would do R4) R5) Illegalcombant left R4 blank, what a fool !!! R6) Illegalcombant isn't really thinking these reasons through, ergo is a fool. R7) Illegalcombatant is STILL referring to themselves in the third person, not only is it foolish, its getting a bit annoying..... R8) Dog food tastes just like it smells........ DELICIOUS !!! R9) R8 is not relevant to this debate I think we have good reason to support that Pro/Illegalcombatant is a fool. I look forward to Cons stupid, pointless and wrong argument, as I can't possibly lose this debate. Sources [1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
Tomatoes Lay Eggs

Indeed. At least we can both agree that tomatoes do lay eggs. It is important to remember that the hamster would have been crippled if you bit into its leg. It probably got a few squeaks out, but we are still on different sides. I completely agree with you, but we are competing in this particular debate. I wish it were not so. I would like to conduct more research on tomatoes with you. Since I cannot argue with you I will give another fact. When the hamster hatches it poops a tomato. It is kind of like a paradox because tomatoes only come from hamsters.
Tomatoes Lay Eggs

On some level I must agree with you. Since hamsters hatch from eggs it is a possibility that the eggs tomatoes lay have hamsters in them. You see, when you bit into that tomato, you felt a hamster that had hatched the wrong way. What you do in that situation is eat the rest of the tomato (including the hamster) and poop out the hamster. I've had to do that before, but I had a PhD in tomato physics.
Tomatoes Lay Eggs

Tomatoes do lay eggs. I watched it happen with my grape tomatoes on my kitchen counter. The tomatoes layed the egg out of it's stem. I've been studying this anomaly for 4.2349842 Buzz Lightyears. I've noticed that 7.935% of tomatoes lay eggs. The sound the tomatoes make when laying eggs is a watery moan emiting from the tomatoes bottom. When I saw this I jumped with joy. I had a dream about having a tomato lay an egg. It inspired me to be a better person. So I sat on the tomato to keep it warm.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

Alright, fair point. I agree with police abusing their power, there a plenty of cases where that happened for the past year or so. But it rarely does, I think the reason for that is, they're somewhat scared. You see there used to be more police brutality when the previous president is still sitting, but when the current one got elected, it slowly decreases since I don't think duterte will take kindly of that, seeing as there are numerous cases, almost everyday actually about drug users and dealers getting killed on the streets by unknown men, they're presumed to be vigilantes sent by him but I'm not sure about this yet. Anyways, I strongly agree about the abusing of power part, a police can literally just shoot someone unarmed (Accidentally or not) then plant a gun like nothing happened and state that the suspect tried to fight, the main contradictory problem here is that nothing can be done about it, I mean granted the government can probably implement a system where every police officers on raiding must wear a portable camera to avoid these type of mischievous acts but even then these scenarios rarely happens here, criminals really still do try to fight back and police men risk their lives everyday. Nonetheless, countless previous presidents tried numerous and various ways to counteract crimes without resorting to violence like free rehabilitation for drug users (Drug users volunteer to be cured on their own volition surprisingly) yet none of them were effective to purge clean or at least reduce the crime rate, in the case of the rehabilitation a quarter still used drugs or even more, granted the rest might have really changed but you have to understand that illegal medicine spread quickly and efficiently area to area, people do these illegal act to forget about their painful lives, even for a moment, which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

I don't know much about filipino politics but this could be a good time to learn.The major problem I see with anykind of kill on sight law at all, is it gives a lot of power to the government and police that is too easily corropted and abused. For instance if a police officer has a grudge against someone for whatever reason, they could easily kill on sight and say the person was armed. Depending on how organised and generally well-ran the police are there, the officer might have to plant a weapon or claim the individual tried to take the officers weapon, but it would still be relitivly simple and would cause officer accountablity to be extremely hard to manage.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

As a filipino citizen, I wanted to hear what foreigners think about this matter. I think the most glaring problem about this is the lack of discipline here in the country, there's literally drug users left and right within main cities and even remote places, crimes, rapes and robbery is happening every minute or so. I know that the philippines is not as bad compared to other countries when it comes to crime rate, but it's bad enough that our president promised to wipe out or at last reduce the crime rate by half or even more. Take the terrorism in "Marawi" for example, without our current president which is mostly a military specialist ( Duterte (President) used to be a mayor on one of the bigger cities, he's known to have a squad of vigilantes that kills criminals called "Davao Death Squad", but I don't know how much of this is true) the crisis will most likely be drawn out since the government will probably not spend much money on equipment due to cost therefore more deaths will occur and terrorizing will continue, but since the current head is used to this killings, he didn't have second thoughts and instead brought out and borrowed weapons and supplies from other countries to help asses the situation, without the AFP bombing "Marawi", the war will most likely continue on for much longer since infantry firefights is much more dangerous and therefore extra caution is needed which equals to more time and deaths. Anyways I went on a tangent there, let us continue on the main matter at hand. The crime problem, I used to live in one of those area and I can tell you right now there are parts where you don't want to go, I'm restricted to many areas because of this and one time almost got kidnapped, but that's not the problem, the problem here is the lack of humanity, whenever I see the news, there's always "Police firefights" or "11 Year old raped" or something much worse like "Head found on a lake" which just goes to show how bad the crisis is. I can go on for much longer but I'm getting tired, I'll write more when the next round started. Anyways thank for reading and I'm looking forward to your answer.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

I will use this final round to clarfy some points, and on a side note your english is amazing! "Lastly about the mental illness thing again, since I'm pretty sure I misread that. Not all that started with drugs has a mental illness prior to being addicted, it can just be a simple case of someone that has a hard life or depressed, and some guy tried convincing them to take drugs to forget these problems, just like alcohol (Even though alcoholism is a problem, it's not as major as drug addiction, so I'm not going further into that since that is another story for another day) but much worse, or even just taking it on their own volition due to the former reason. " You did misread that a bit, I said many drug addicts had a mental illness prior to addiction, and that that is a common cause for drugs ever even being used at all.
The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals.

I sincerely respect your opinion, you have valid points and an example which is enough for me to lose this debate. But there's one or multiple contradicting problem to your statement. First let's try sorting out the "Drug dealers should be punished not the users." and you're right! You're completely right 100% but even users start dealing drugs to minors, as young as 10 or 12 years old, and this is the type of chain reaction that is happening right now. The police using non-lethal means is also a problem since they usually taser the suspect first and if they got arrested without gunfights or mandatory bloodshed, then the news won't really take notice of it. Peace is boring, violence is viral, that's media's motto. Now about the drug addiction being a mental illness... I agree, these type of medicine destroys your brain and takes out any logical reasoning, that's why free rehabilitation became a thing, but it didn't work, drug dealers just spread more and more leaving their pitiful victims behind. Now with all of this work towards maintaining a proper civilization, none of them, or most of them we're ineffective or didn't come to fruition as one might expect so what do we do? Violence, and it worked! Crime rates went down to 30 or even 60 percent! And with addition of death sentence, this will further reduce and possibly exterminate this dilemma. Now I'm not into violence, or even the president means of achieving peace (Ironic actually, but violence comes first before peace, especially with the world's status of being prone to wars), I pity those people who got killed by the authorities because they're also victims and I don't necessarily agree with the "Kill on sight law" since it's inhumane, you should give the person a chance first, but as the aforementioned defective means of mandatory rehabilitation goes, we gave them multiple chances to stop and start a new life, yet none of them took the chance and opportunity to do so. Lastly about the mental illness thing again, since I'm pretty sure I misread that. Not all that started with drugs has a mental illness prior to being addicted, it can just be a simple case of someone that has a hard life or depressed, and some guy tried convincing them to take drugs to forget these problems, just like alcohol (Even though alcoholism is a problem, it's not as major as drug addiction, so I'm not going further into that since that is another story for another day) but much worse, or even just taking it on their own volition due to the former reason. And this is the end of my statement, I don't really expect to win since this is my first debate and I'm not a native english speaker, but I just want to say this right now that if there were other ways to counteract the problem, then I won't be writing this, but our country tried multiple times to stop the crisis yet they're all ineffective. Anyways I really enjoyed this debate, it's civil and you had some pretty good points so thanks for stopping by and voicing your opinion. :)