BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should euthanasia be legalized

A doctor"s function has changed over time. In the past, the doctor was a person who besides being your friend treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases, but he/she is not always your friend. What will never change is their constant struggle against death. However, their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he/she can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering have never been in a situation where I have to decide whether euthanasia should be applied to someone or not. But I tell you something: if I ever see myself in that kind of situation, I would have no doubt of agreeing with it. If it is the desire of the person to die, I will support him. I think that choosing how we want to die is not an option that we all get. So be sure I'll help someone on choosing when and how he wants to die. Just imagine yourself in a similar situation. Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.
Homework

Good Argument. I believe we should not have homework. Their are many reasons for and against this topic. I believe that children need to have time to be children. They can go to school and learn but they should have a break once in a while. However, students have homework piled onto them so much they work late into the night trying to finish it so they can keep their grade up. The dont get much sleep because their mind is racing , thinking about homework they maybe didnt get a chance to finish that they have to do in the morning or because they are just too stressed both at school and at home. If a child cannot learn what needs to be learned in a six hour day, we are expecting too much of a child. We are creating a jam-packed hurried day without a chance to play, reflect and interact. Adding hours to an already busy day is absurd. Older Children Are Even More Busy: So if younger students need a chance to play, the reality is that many older students are busy with extracurricular activities. Duke University"s study (by Harris Cooper) concluded that homework does not increase achievement and it often decreases it instead. I spent some time looking at the "studies" regarding homework and they all point to a correlation rather than a causal relationship between homework and achievement. The bottom line is that the research is sketchy at best. Homework doesn"t teach good study habits. It teaches kids to study, because they have to rather than need to. Similarly, homework doesn"t help children become hard workers, because the work is not self-directed. Want to watch a child work hard and take ownership of learning? Watch a child build a bridge for fun. Let a child read a book for fun (without the bribery of fried dough) and see just how hard a kid will work when there is a meaningful goal. Hard work is a product of motivation. It is an internal drive. When we a parent steps in an makes a child work hard, the work ethic diminishes. In conclusion, I believe that students should not have homework because it isnt beneficial and it stresses students out tremendously. :)
Homework

My argument is not for homework to be graded but simply to be for practice for students who want to practice. Students who feel that they don't need extra practice normally do homework because they feel like they have to. In one study done by Miami University, students who excelled at a specific subject matter and got graded on homework were shown to have a better understanding of the subject matter than those who did no homework and took the test without studying at all. Homework doesn't necessarily need to be graded but homework should still be enforced and done. Many students blow off homework because they don't feel like they need to do it or because it won't benefit their grades very much. When the amount of homework done was correlated with the students test scores, many students began doing their homework more frequently. In one school, the teachers are required to write the number of missed assignments along with each students test score when they get their tests back. This way, students can see how the homework done correlates with their understanding and success of the subject matter. All in all, I think that homework should never be banned. Each student learns a little differently in the classroom so homework is a good way for students to review what they learned in the day and then teach themselves the way they understand so that they can score well on the test and get good grades. Homework should be done by every student because it is proven to help you succeed in school and develop good study habits for later in life.
Homework

Too much homework can encourage cheating because children end up copying off one another in an attempt to finish all their assignments. They then end up being rewarded for cheating which doesn't benefit them at all. Also, a lot of teachers don't often have the time to grade papers properly as they are too busy with designing lesson plans and consulting teaching resources in order to just manage lessons. So by the time students are getting their papers back, the class has moved on to a new topic.
Homework

I think that family time is achieved even when a student does have homework. It is when teachers give loads of homework that it becomes a problem. Homework is good for young students and even high school age students because it teaches them good time management and it also teaches them responsibility. Homework helps students develop positive work pattern and helps develop good study skills that each student can use later in life. Homework does give some students stress but without homework, a student's grade would dramatically increase as noted in a study about the effects one school saw when they got rid of homework.
Homework

I disagree with this statement. The first reason is because i think children should not be given homework because they need time to relax and take their minds off work. The pressure of having to complete homework every night is quite daunting for most children and they need time to refresh their minds and bodies. Also,it reduces the amount of time that children could be spending with their families. Family time is especially important to a growing child and without it social problems can crop up and a family unit can be compromised by a lack of time being spent together.
God/s exist in GRRMs World of Ice and Fire

I accept. I agree with these three definitions. However, I believe that we should decide upon the meaning of the word "transcendent" as the first meaning in the Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...), which is "Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience", and that the definition of "World of Ice and Fire" should note the fact that Dunk & Egg and other novellas also take place in this world.
God/s exist in GRRMs World of Ice and Fire

1. 2. For this debate the following terms will apply: God/s: A supernatural transcendent being/s identified as a deity by worshipers with the ability to effect the natural world in an imminent fashion. Proof: Informal logical proof that meets the criteria of the principal of sufficient reason. GRRMs World of Ice and Fire: The fictional universe created by George RR Martin, which is the setting of his "A Song of Ice and Fire" Series. Burden of proof is on Pro.
Medical Marijuana

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me his final arguments. I will now begin mine. Because this round can be utilized mainly for conclusions, it is what I will use it for. However, I have a few last rebuttals to give. I would also like to go over why I think the judges should choose a Con-vote. Throughout this debate, both my opponent and I have given sufficient, viable arguments to our sides. However, I believe my points weigh out his. Looking at my list of medical marijuana symptoms, I believe medical marijuana generally makes conditions worse. Because of this, my opponent cannot simply deny the dangers. Looking at his arguments, he has not, however he seems to not understand the pensiveness of the side effects. I will go over this again in my rebuttals. Rebuttals"Perhaps I utilized the wrong terminology. The point I was trying to make was that the side effects are nothing in comparison to the benefits. "If one were to look at my list of side effects, they would see that the side effects overwhelm the benefits. "I acknowledge the potential, yet very unlikely, dangers of medical marijuana. However, it is currently the safest drug to treat epilepsy and other such conditions and diseases. "Unlikely? The dangers are very likely. I do not know how my opponent can possibly deny this. "No, my opponent has not refuted this. Marijuana can be bred, not only to have low THC and high CBD, but also to have reduced or eliminated side effects. It is a matter of genetics. "I did refute it, actually. Here is the quote to prove it: "I am speaking of the undeniable side effects of medical marijuana, even when bred a certain way. " In that statement, I said that breeding has not done much to the side effects. Furthermore, have we ever bred it to have no side effects? No, we have not. "While we research and try to find cures and deny individuals to use medical marijuana, people are dying. I do not deny that safer alternatives can and will be found in the future, but for now, marijuana is the safest treatment for certain conditions and illnesses. While we wait for that perfect treatment to be discovered, and people are not utilizing the positive effects of medical marijuana, death is occurring because of this. "Let's think about the scenarios for a moment:1. A person dies from epilepsy. or 2. A person dies from drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety. Hmm. .. I am simply thinking about the consequences of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has the capacity to make it much worse. Why even try marijuana as a cure? ConclusionIn conclusion, I have enjoyed this debate.
Medical Marijuana

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for proffering this debate to me. It is a controversial topic and shall be an interesting one.ArgumentsFacts: Here is a list of things medical marijuana is used for: 1. AIDS treatment 2. Glaucoma 3. Nausea and vomiting 4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy 5. Pain caused by certain physiological disorders 6. Treatment of multiple sclerosis 7. Symptoms of Parkinson’s disease 8. Appetite stimulant for malnutrition 9. Treatment of epilepsy 10. Migraine headaches Why it should not be used: However, according to webmd.com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD)." Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center).As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person.ConclusionIn conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.Works Cited"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com...;."Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana." Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.
Medical Marijuana

I have already debated jamccartney on this very issue. However, my defeat was justified. I was on vacation, had horrible internet, and thus my argument was horrible. I am now ready to try again. I challenge my good friend jamccartney to this debate. This debate will follow a judge voting system. Each debater has 72 hours to present his argument. There will be four total rounds. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept this debate. In the second round, my opponent and I will present our main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. In the third round, my opponent and I will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. In the fourth and final round, we will offer final rebuttals and write conclusions, which will summarize the debate. All sources will be cited using the MLA format. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization will be used. There will be no forfeiture or concession. This debate will be rational, mature, logical, and factual. Opinions will only be stated when supported by facts. I look forward to this debate and await my opponent's acceptance.
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

"They're not trying to be sarcastic" Doesn't matter. "Basically, you're still wrong if you're using it sarcastically with an ulterior meaning." " even though you're being sarcastic is STILL incorrect when you're trying to say that the test was easy. " You ought to provide reasons for me to accept that. I say sarcasm changes everything and I think I've got the consensus on my side since we all can agree that when I say yes sarcastically - we all understand that I am saying no. According to our definition "Term: 'any word or expression' " I win since via sarcasm this term does its job. "And when did I say it was the term's fault." The title. If you think the term is correct when used properly then "The term "I could care less" contravenes itself" is incorrect. "Everything contradicts itself when not being used sarcastically?" Nope I said "everything contradicts itself for I can't think of a thing which can't be misused". Not sarcasm but proper use. "Sarcasm does not imply apathy, instead it implies taunting and mocking." There are different types of sarcasm. "I elaborated in my opening post saying that people who use the term to reflect apathy use it incorrectly." Where? "In a nutshell: the phrase "I could care less" is totally wrong when wanting to show apathy, so people should stop using it 8l." There? "Example of improper usage (we're assuming the second speaker is meaning to show apathy):" Then what about this? "In this situation, the second speaker states that he "could care less." Now, "to care" means to actually show concern as stated above. To show indifference, the correct phrase would be "I couldn't care less." Oh so its the phrase. The proper "usage" would be "I couldn't care less" when trying to show apathy. Why? Because the phrase "I could care less" contravenes itself. In short your stance has to do with the term and not the usage. " The term is often misused by people, as my opponent has admitted." No its you who conceded this. " It's a contradiction of intentions, sarcastic or not" ??? Thank you
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

Thank you. "I could care less how people use it, as long as this term can be used properly and in a way it doesn't contradict itself - I win." Hardly. My case is that people that say the phrase "I could care less" when meaning to show apathy are saying it wrong. Apathy. Indifference. They're not trying to be sarcastic, they're trying to SHOW that they do not care in a forthwith manner. "I've no idea what you're trying to say ; please elaborate." You said that the sarcastic element in the phrase "I could care less" makes it a correct phrase for the situation. The sarcastic phrase may portray that the person speaking wishes to show sarcasm, however it's still not correct. Saying "That was the hardest test EVERRRR" even though you're being sarcastic is STILL incorrect when you're trying to say that the test was easy. Basically, you're still wrong if you're using it sarcastically with an ulterior meaning. "Again the usage is of no importance. Its not the poor terms fault that people misuse it." And when did I say it was the term's fault. It's obviously the peoples' faults that misuse it. Thank you for agreeing that people misuse it, by the way. "In conclusion the title says: "The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference" We are talking about the term itself and not the way people use it. Granted it does contravene itself when not used sarcastically but by that logic everything contradicts itself for I can't think of a thing which can't be misused." Everything contradicts itself when not being used sarcastically? "I like that class." Oh no, I contradicted myself! Wait... wha--? That's a fallacy. I elaborated in my opening post saying that people who use the term to reflect apathy use it incorrectly. Sarcasm does not imply apathy, instead it implies taunting and mocking. In conclusion: The term "I could care less" when intended to show apathy to a situation is an incorrect phrase. The term is often misused by people, as my opponent has admitted. It's a contradiction of intentions, sarcastic or not. Thank you, voters, readers, and my opponent for a wonderfully thought-provoking debate. I apologize for any sort of condescending or any sort of snide attitude I may have had throughout the debate. I seem to get that way when debates get going :S.
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

"To mock the idea of caring is not a contention to most that use this. " I could care less how people use it, as long as this term can be used properly and in a way it doesn't contradict itself - I win. " It may make sense if you're trying to be subtle, however the form of the phrase is still incorrect to the situation (as most sarcastic remarks are.)" I've no idea what you're trying to say ; please elaborate. " generally people use it as a substitution for "I couldn't care less" which is an invalid substitution." Again the usage is of no importance. Its not the poor terms fault that people misuse it. In conclusion the title says: "The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference" We are talking about the term itself and not the way people use it. Granted it does contravene itself when not used sarcastically but by that logic everything contradicts itself for I can't think of a thing which can't be misused.
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

However, this makes little sense. To mock the idea of caring is not a contention to most that use this. Especially the person I keep talking to that says this. Sarcasm aside, this is still an incorrect phrase. It may make sense if you're trying to be subtle, however the form of the phrase is still incorrect to the situation (as most sarcastic remarks are. ) That brings me to my next point. I'm glad you brought up the preference of using that term. People hear this term a lot and therefore begin exercising its usage. Some MAY attempt to use it for some sort of sarcastic remark, however generally people use it as a substitution for "I couldn't care less" which is an invalid substitution.
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

Definitions: Term: "any word or expression" Contravenes: "to come or be in conflict with; go or act against; deny or oppose: to contravene a statement. " Show: "to indicate; point out: to show the way. " Indifference "lack of interest or concern" Dictionary. com My chief argument: The one who says "I could care less. " is showing sarcasm ; he is mocking the idea of him caring. Personally I prefer this new term I learned because: 1. I enjoy seldom sarcastic comments 2. Its indirect unlike "I couldn't care less. " Thank you for reading, V0Antras
The term "I could care less" contravenes itself when used to show indifference

Hello and welcome. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting. Let's go ahead and get this show on the road, shall we! I keep hearing this (from the same person, but still) phrase: "I could care less," when used to show apathy. As much as I hate semantics, I suppose I should do this... Care - a cause or object of worry, anxiety, concern, etc. Source: http://www.dictionary.com... Less - to a smaller extent, amount, or degree Source: http://www.dictionary.com... Now, with definitions (ugh) out of the way, let's see what we're looking at. Example of improper usage (we're assuming the second speaker is meaning to show apathy): "I don't like you." "I could care less." In this situation, the second speaker states that he "could care less." Now, "to care" means to actually show concern as stated above. To show indifference, the correct phrase would be "I couldn't care less." In a nutshell: the phrase "I could care less" is totally wrong when wanting to show apathy, so people should stop using it 8l. Thank you, readers and voters.
The Death Penalty

So you have one eccentric group of robbers in 1973 and then a single study with no follow ups which you admit yourself proved in conclusive upon further investigation. I don't think this is enough evidence to just start killing people. You talk about speeding up the death penalty. This is just irresponsible. That will just increase the amount of innocent people killed and it would fly in the face of the appeal process. I won't strain your or the readers by rehashing the same points. I think our contentions are clear in this debate. Good Debate.