BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
that islamic belief in getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

I look forward to a good debate. Since there were no rules specified about which rounds allow arguments, I will provide my arguments starting now. The definition of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " (1) Since Islam meets this criteria, it therefore follows that it is, in fact, a valid religion. Plus, reward in the afterlife is common in almost every religion, and reward is usually centered around human desire. The Christian afterlife, for example, mentions streets of gold, feasts, and several other things that are centered around the human desires for beauty and indulgence. Also, seeing as how the idea of 72 virgins isn't actually found in the Qu'ran, it can't really be stated that it is an intrinsic part of the religion. I have more arguments at the ready, but I'll wait for them to see how my opponent responds to what I've said thus far. 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...
euthanasia and assisted suicide

#1Since I'm not a buddhist I don't think "life is suffering". I'm also not judging whether someone should die or not. I'm just saying that if people CHOOSE to commit suicide, it is their choice and you shouldn't interfere with that. The same with euthanasia. #2You were partially right. The definition of murder is killing a person under conditions covered by the law. That means euthanasia is murder in America, but not in Europe. This makes it debatable whether it is really murder. Some think so, some don't. I don't since the person agreed to putting him to sleep. Also Kevorkian carefully picked his patients and judged whether he would commit euthanasia on them, he didn't want anyone to die if he thought wasn't necessary. So I wouldn't call him a criminal, but rather some kind of savior. [1]#3God's commandment says "thou shall not MURDER". And I think we've just established it is questionable whether euthanasia is murder. Also the church has killed many people in the name of God, and that was okay with him. Then one ill person who sees no reasons to live should be fine too. Closing argumentMy opponent has heavily relied on exceptional examples which don't occur enough to make it a reason not to agree with euthanasia. I know this is a touchy subject so I'm asking the voters not to vote from your own opinion about euthanasia, but vote for the person with the best arguments.
euthanasia and assisted suicide

sorry, but I was out of town so I could not post my argument. 1. yes, he was the ONLY person who survived that disease, but one life is better than none. The doctors thought ha would die but he did not. He showed no signs of recovery and you would know that if you read the article. Also assisted suicide is an exception to the norm. It excepts people who have "Lived too long" and "Should die." so you should not make the argument since it too is an exception. According to your logic. Life is suffering and you cannot achieve anything without it. And a lot of people will suffer if their families send the doctor authorization to kill them. Also, A person's inability to function does not make their lives less valuable. So weather or not they can't talk, they should not die.[4] 2. I must "look at the big picture" as you said, and if one person is willing to do this, more people are. Or to put it simpler, where one goes, others follow. My judgement is on the entirety of people and I can't just except a few groups of people just because they did the thing I am arguing against. Also, there is doctor Kevorkian. He was a doctor that killed 130 patients. He was arrested for good reason. He killed his patients without even trying to help them in other ways. [1] the definition of euthanasia is "mercy killing".[2] murder is "the killing of another human" [3] so euthanasia is murder. 3. Alright, so if you go that way I can also say he allowed Hitler to masacher millions of Jews BY EUTHANASIA. However, I do not believe this and neither should you. Gods commandment said "thou shall not kill" By definition, euthanasia is killing. Vote con sources 1. http://articles.latimes.com... 2.http://dictionary.reference.com... 3.http://dictionary.reference.com... 4.http://www.priestsforlife.org...
euthanasia and assisted suicide

I see you're going on the offensive here, alright.And you haven't posted any arguments of yourself here, just pointing that out.#1You're taking an example that rarely occurs here. Of course there are exceptions, but 9 out of 10 people die in those cases. And we can't make judgements based on exceptions. You know there is no hope left when the patient shows no signs of recovery and is too severely wounded for him to possibly recover. Your source clearly states he was the ONLY person in britain who had survived that case.I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just stating a what if. And again you're taking an extreme example. Sure there is a time when there's a conspiracy between family members and doctors to make sure the patient dies to gain his fortune. But if we don't stop being scared of those extreme situations and look at the big picture (to help many suffering people), we will never achieve something.#2Using extreme examples again. What you say may be true, which is why the law in my country (Netherlands) says that euthanasia can only be performed on request of the patient. And that doctor was an *sshole, don't let those people cloud your judgement.#3God gave us free will so also the free choice of inventing abortion and euthanasia.
euthanasia and assisted suicide

1. People are going to die no matter what so why not let them try and get a long full life. How do we know when there is no hope left. there was a boy in great Britain and he had a deadly strain of e. coli and the doctors said he won't live. He was five. He lived despite "kidney and liver failure and (being) blind in both eyes" He also had numerous operations. Now he is a happy kid living a full life.[1] You claim that the patient has the choice to die then contradict yourself with the statement, "If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient" Well what if the person does not want to die, or the close people want the life insurance. Or the doctors want to save money on operating. We put a pet to sleep because they do not have the full mental capacity as humans do. 2. If we use euthanasia as a way to cut health care bills, we may go on the slippery slope and killing off whoever we please. There was a blue and baby deformed baby and the doctor decided to "let nature complete it's bungled job." The baby could have been saved but the doctor wanted to save money and time rather than a new life. 3. Lets keep god and religion out of this debate. However, God also allowed us to invent life support and other such life saving inventions so that we could help keep life alive. However voters, please ignore this colum unless my opponent wishes to be stubborn and not comply to my wishes. I suggest pro, that you do accept, seeing as this debate is highly religious. source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
euthanasia and assisted suicide

I accept and wil debate the benefits of euthanasia.#1Euthanasia gives people a choice to die. If they are in severe pain they should be able to have the choice of living and death, and when they have no hope left, it would be unnecessary to let them live if they don't want to. Also death is a private matter and no harm to others. If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient. Also the doctors are paid to satisfy the needs of the patient and if a patient wants to die with dignity then it's a doctors duty to do so. When a pet is ill we put it to sleep as well as an act of mercy and compassion. Why not with humans?#2Keeping a person alive costs a lot of money and putting the patient to sleep would spare money to aid other persons. I would like to point out this should not be the primary reason for euthanasia but it is certainly a benefit.#3I see you're a christian so you would oppose euthanasia because god gave life to every person and life is sacred. This is debatable but not the point of this debate. Going by this logic if God wanted a person to die, the doctors should not bother trying to save him since it's His choice.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

I'm just gonna go ahead and concede. My forfeit messed things up. Without having presented a negative case of my own, the debate's structure is screwed over, and Zaradi's criticism objectively wins him the debate: "...my opponent doesn't provide any kind of position of his own. There is no case that he is advocating for, which means there's no position for the judge to endorse. This means that the only position that there is available for a judge to endorse is the aff... Just because adolescents not having medical autonomy is the status quo doesn't actually show us why it ought to be the status quo... he can't link into the role of the ballot, which means you as a voter cannot vote for him." And I already agreed to his voting paradigm, too, so there's no way for me to win this debate without introducing new arguments in the final round (either putting forth a negative case or advocating an alternative voting paradigm). Sorry, fellas.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Welcome, DDO! I'm starting yet another debate on this resolution. Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.First round will be acceptance. No new arguments in the last round.This debate will be a HALLOWEEN THEMED DEBATE!!! I made a forum post detailing what this means here: (http://www.debate.org...). Long story short, expect some fun arguments from me :310k characters. Select winner voting. 2500 elo minimum to vote.
We shall ban Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing.

I was walking through the city today when I saw many couples of mixed-races. Mostly caucasian males with asian whores. 'Oh, what a traitor of their country.' was what I thought. Those men, leaving their country's women and not making child of true heritage. And the men of the women's country, they wouldn't have any woman! Their children wouldn't even have proper nationality and home! Those asian women only rely on Caucasian men for money, and thus, the children is what I hate the most, arrogant pricks. The woman is a whore, dressing like a prostitute. Believe me, I've got a lot of experience dealing with these mongrels. This belief shall be established not only in my country but globally. I do not believe in racism, and I think that races a're all equal and have unique cultures, but what I dislike is the fact that cultures and races are merging into one another, making them lose their uniqueness. We shall globally make the affirmation "We shall fight as one united being with our country!"
We shall ban Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing.

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his last round and also failed to prove that we should ban "Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing. " My opponent needed to give reasonable reasons and explanation for why we should ban these types of marriages, instead he gave some personal reasons that failed to back up the resolution sufficiently. With the burden of proof on my opponent, he failed to prove the resolution and thus loses the debate.
We shall ban Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing.

You may have pointed out some of the flaws I had made, but it seems that you do not have a strong conviction to support mixed races, you are just someone with a neutral will. I do not see any benefits being made from mixed races. No matter which races are merged in, they are inferior due to the fact they lack loyalty in their country. These men are from First-world countries, therefore they go overseas to work. If these men have opportunities to work overseas, that means that they are both rich and on a prominent position. Do you want these good men to make children with women that does not have value in position or occupation? The child is not going to belong in the fatherland that has provided all for him/her. Populations of first-world countries are decreasing due to the fact that men go overseas without making children with his own people. Everybody loves these children just because of how they were born. They are likely to escape unemployment, because many people are wanting to hire them for their education, talent, and so on. This makes the people born in unfortunate circumstances hard to find jobs. Thus the children of these people are in such fortunate state that they can evade military service and poverty. Think of all the soldiers that fought for their country. Do these children have the same loyalty as they do?
We shall ban Mixed-race marriages and prohibit them from reproducing.

I'll begin this round by replying to my opponent's opening. "Mostly caucasian males with asian whores. " This is a baseless assertion against Asian women. You also need to provide data that the majority of mixed race marriages are of this sort for it to have some relevance. "'Oh, what a traitor of their country. ' was what I thought. Those men, leaving their country's women and not making child of true heritage. " Why are they traitors? And what value is there to having "true heritage"? "And the men of the women's country, they wouldn't have any woman! Their children wouldn't even have proper nationality and home! " This assertion isn't backed with anything. "Those asian women only rely on Caucasian men for money, and thus, the children is what I hate the most, arrogant pricks. The woman is a whore, dressing like a prostitute. " Once again this is a baseless assertion requiring some evidence. It also needs to be given context related to the resolution. "Believe me, I've got a lot of experience dealing with these mongrels. " My opponent's possible prejudice aside, what he has "dealt with" has nothing to do with properly substantiating the resolution. "This belief shall be established not only in my country but globally. " We'll need to hear at least one good reason and some evidence backing it up to consider the resolution. Especially if it's to be considered on a global level. "I do not believe in racism, and I think that races a're all equal and have unique cultures, but what I dislike is the fact that cultures and races are merging into one another, making them lose their uniqueness. " What is wrong with races and cultures merging? And what value is there in the uniqueness of cultures? While there may be a good answer to this, please relate it to the resolution. To what extent and for what reason is the "uniqueness of culture" so valuable that we should prevent all mixed-race marriages? "We shall globally make the affirmation "We shall fight as one united being with our country! "" I'm not sure what this means and how it applies to the resolution. So far my opponent hasn't stated anything to support the resolution. I look forward to seeing my opponent make an argument in favor of banning mixed-race marriages and to him replying to my responses.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

-- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con. If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default; no contesting a rule after accepting the debate -- Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them. Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent *Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance *Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with a lower case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes. Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted Have fun, it should be entertaining ha
All living human beings breathe.

Due to my opponent's forfeit, I will extend my arguments and build new ones. 1. Breathing When you have a heart attack, you could, maybe, not breathe. My aunt could not breathe when she had a heart attack. This shows that right before you die, you would not breathe. Simple? Pro has not made any arguments. Well, I'd like to thank TheDragonReborn and the readers! Thank you.
All living human beings breathe.

I give thanks to Pro for making this debate, even though it could be an easy win. However, let's begin! Breathe: inhale <1> 1. Breathing humans Humans who dive down into the waters (divers) will hold their breath for a short time period. They do not breath for a time period. This shows that humans do not breathe. <3> 2. Toxic fumes Self-explanatory. Humans do not breathe toxic fumes. If they do, they could die. Humans do not breathe these fumes. <2> Thank you. I await my opponent's response. Citations <1> http://www.google.com... <2> http://wiki.answers.com... <3> http://boards.straightdope.com...
Death penalty is cruel and unnecessary

Whether or not it costs more for life imprisonment, the death penalty is still depriving a person of life and the chance to better themselves even if they are never set free from prison. Also even though death is the worst punishment, many criminals, I think, would rather die than have life imprisonment. The margin for error in sentencing is also too great, juries can be prejudiced because of race, religion, and color. Since when can the government decide to do things that the common person isn't allowed to. Its unfair and a cruel abuse of a governments power.
Death penalty is cruel and unnecessary

"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual"s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life" - Pius XII In other words, when one person commits a crime such as taking another person's life or attempting against other one's dignity, one should be deprived of similar rights as the crimes he committed inflicted. This legal model has been around since Mesopotamia was established and even the appeared in the code of Hamurabi. It also preserves public order due to the fact that in most Latin American countries without death penalty, legal systems are not efficient enough which causes more criminal offences. Apart from these, studies that claim that death penalties are more expensive are only based on a "case by case" basis, in where they take a single death penalty against a single trial of a conventional prisoner, but these studies do not take into account the annual cost per prisoner each year, thus it is also a fact that in the long term, the bill of a prisoner that is sentenced to at least 50 years in prison is higher that one of a death row prisoner. I also wish to argue that these studies are not made by an impartial and neutral organisation, but by human rights activists. These studies may be biased or the data they obtain may not be completely accurate. For instance, death penalty in the long term, protects society and also could help the a country to lower their taxes, making it a viable solution to crimes that violate basic human rights.
Death penalty is cruel and unnecessary

I believe that a persons life is to be protected under all circumstances and that means even if they are guilty. What I don't see is what is wrong with life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty. The idea that it costs more to keep a person in prison then the death penalty is wrong. It costs 4x as much to put someone to death then it does to keep them in prison for life. I think that taking a person's life as punishment is totally unjust and wrong. The only circumstance that I can see the death penalty as being an option is when is is impossible to keep them restrained, which is very, very rare.
Death penalty is cruel and unnecessary

Although killing a person as such is immoral, the common good is more important that the individual rights in any society. Bearing in mind that punishments must go in accordance with crimes, when violating a basic human right that threatens a person's life or its dignity deserves a similar punishment that inflicts psychological and physical hardship in a criminal but that at the same time protects society from him, For instance the death penalty serves these two objectives simultaneously. Apart from this, it is also a fact that when punishing with jail sentences, the prisoner's maintenance is part of the responsibilities of the government and therefore it is paid with common people taxes, which makes the punishment for the criminal a punishment for society, that is what justice aims to protect
Female objectification as a natural response

I take it from Pro that the burden of proof is on him as he is making the assertion that: Female objectification stems from a natural response. REFUTATION Pro argues, "When a male of the species sees/smells a certain female of the same species; there is a hormonal primal attraction that creates a natural desire which places the that woman in a place objectivity. " Refutation: The term "sexual object" is in itself, contradictory, as an inanimate object doesn't have sexual aspects, and hence the biological or hormonal tendency in the above example would be to couple sexuality to a living being capable of sexuality, and hence sexual objectification fails to be a natural response as the metaphor of a "sexualized object" is too complex for instinctive behavior. That being said, women objectify themselves[1] and hetrosexual women objecity other women[2] without a hormonal primal attraction or even a sexual tendency. Furthermore, there is no reasoning in Pro's argument that takes us from why a natural desire would lead to the specific cognitive behavior of sexual objectification. This is considered a hidden premise fallacy unless a logical connection is established. We have not received any scientific research supporting this hypothesis. CONCLUSION In summary, Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof by establishing that female objectification can stem from a merely instinctive/biological response. That is, independent of any socially-introduced factors. This requires conclusive scientific research otherwise it would be mere speculation. SOURCES [1] Fredrickson, Barbara L. ; Harrison, Kristen (February 2005). "Throwing like a girl: self-objectification predicts adolescent girls’ motor performance". Journal of Sport and Social Issues (Sage) 29 (1): 79–101. doi:10.1177/0193723504269878. [2] . http://www.livescience.com...
Female objectification as a natural response

First, I am not condoning the objectification of women as a proper means of human interaction in a civilized society, no am I condoning any of the behavior associated with the objectification of women. I also say all this from a male perspective, I do not rule out that the same conditions exist from a female perspective. My argument is this; when a male of the species sees/smells a certain female of the same species; there is a hormonal primal attraction that creates a natural desire which places the that woman in a place objectivity as related to the desire. Furthermore, it is this very objectification that has perpetuated the human race, and though caused many a fray, often to the point of violence; is why we are all so deeply physically bound.