BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we allow euthanasia

"Dying is not a crime" " Jack Kevorkian Euthanasia is not shortening life whatever people say terminal illness is the last stop before death which is a very hard thing to say however it is true. In 1991, a Dutch report into euthanasia found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, it was a last resort"an escape hatch used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony ended now than in two days" time. Now, this isn"t to say that miracle recoveries never happen: They occasionally do. But the reason you hear about them is because they"re so statistically improbable. For the vast majority of patients, such a recovery is less likely than winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning in the same afternoon. Legalising euthanasia will actually save lives this is very strange as the process does the opposite but a study in 2005 by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient"s explicit permission. You might argue that that"s 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report"written a decade before euthanasia was legalised"put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient"s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths. It also makes economic sense. Most people would be shocked to think economics factored into their life-or-death decisions, and rightly so. However, there"s no getting around how absurdly expensive end-of-life care is in America: According to CNN, one in every four Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life. The upshot of this is often crippling debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the care of a single individual at the end of their life costing an estimated $39,000. For 40 percent of households, the bill exceeds their financial assets. This might be acceptable if end-of-life care was worth the money, but it"s objectively not. Doctors will readily attest to the ability of modern medicine to slightly prolong life"at the cost of totally destroying its quality. If you can"t be bothered to read that last link, I"ll sum it up here: End-of-life care is often brutal, nasty, traumatic, and very expensive, putting patients through long stretches of unnecessary suffering just to give them an extra month or two. And when the terminally ill patient undergoing these nasty, expensive treatments has repeatedly insisted that they"d rather be dead, you have to start wondering who all this expenditure is really benefiting. The Alternatives Are Horrifying, when we think about death, most of us imagine passing serenely away surrounded by our loved ones. But death isn"t like that. Death is usually slow, painful, and undignified. And by refusing people the "right" to end their own lives, we"re increasing that pain and indignity to a horrifying extent.
Should we allow euthanasia

Such an emotionally charged topic is sure to inspire feelings of disgust and fear in some of the audience. However, we must be brave and consider the position we're debating clearly and in an organized manner if we wish to discover truth. Human beings have the right to their own person as their body is considered a property right under the fourth amendment. Even the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, "There is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person." However, let us be exquisitely clear. We are not discussing euthanasia in the privacy of one's own home. We're discussing patients which means the hospital is the custodian and has a legal duty of care to the patient. Chapter 5.8 in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, it clearly states: "Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician"s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations." This is important from an ethical point of view but also a legal point of view. If euthanasia was allowed, it's not entirely clear how regulation could be reliably maintained. I present evidence of this in the form of an excerpt from the research article entitled "Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide". "For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social "slippery slope," as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. " Also, physicians have a clear duty of care to their patients and harming them is inconsistent with the legal obligation and oath they swore. Therefore, it is not only ethically right but also legally right to forbid physicians to engage in such harmful practices. Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ama-assn.org... https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...
Should we allow euthanasia

If the patient is in a very bad physical state and the doctors have said there is nothing they can do and the patient would be in constant pain to still be alive then the patient should be able to choose as long as he is in a fit mental state. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. Humans should have the right to die that is our choice as humans.
Mace Windu Should Return

Okay, That's all true. But, When they saved themselves, They weren't unconscious, Handless, Falling through the air at incredible speed, And exausted after a prolonged battle with a powerful sith lord. Even if he landed on a speeder, He had his hands chopped off and would not be able to hang on. Also, If he was 50 year old when he was chucked out a window, He would be like 115 years old now. Mace is a famously good duelist, Not known for being otherwise strong with the force.
Mace Windu Should Return

That's outrageous. Yes he struck by Palpatine's force lightening but it's Mace Windu, He doesn't just die. Everyone wants to see the return of Master Windu and Samuel L Jackson more than the fans. The chances of him landing on a speeder are actually high young padawan. If you'll take notice, There are thousands of speeders whizzing by the entire scene. We have seen it many times in the Clone Wars series where the jedi have made the landing on moving objects even when hurt and tired. It can be done young one. The Force is strong with Master Windu and it is for these reasons that Master Windu lives on. Besides those facts listed, Lets go even further. Anakin lost an arm, Both legs, Was burned by lava, And still lived, We also saw Anakin jump out of his speeder, Fall a long time and land on Zam's speeder, Obi-Wan was blasted off a high cliff during Order 66 and he still lived, And Yoda was blasted with Palpatine's force lightening and fell a couple stories hitting some senate pods along the way and he still lived, What's to stop Mace Windu from simply catching a speeder on his way down and surviving? We can take it a step further with catching himself with the Force. In The Phantom Menace, We see Obi-Wan lift himself out of the pit by only focusing on Qui-Gon's lightsaber and slicing Maul and in the Last Jedi we see Luke catch himself with the Force to keep from falling down when battling Rey. Now, Knowing Mace Windu is more powerful Jedi than either one of them, Explain your logic now young padawan. All these factors have played out proving it can be done and with Mace Windu being a powerful Jedi Master, One of these factors could have easily taken place. I know you just want to believe he's dead to try to stick to cannon, But you're wrong, Mace Windu is alive and is in hiding, Awaiting the right time to make his survival known to the galaxy. So, I'm sorry but YOU HAVE LOST MY LORD. . . . .
Mace Windu Should Return

Okay, For starters we never even were supposed to think that Asoka died, She just left the jedi. Clone Wars isn't even canon anymore. I explained why he couldn't save himself, He had just been shocked into unconsciousness by Darth Sidious. And the chances of landing on a landspeeder (and holding on while unconscious) are slim to none. We have to accept the fact that he is dead and not coming back.
Mace Windu Should Return

While you make an outstanding point about Rey being the last Jedi, There could always be the secret that they didn't realize Mace was still alive. Mace Windu is a powerful Jedi and I know he could have saved himself. Did you even watch that 1 minute clip I attached? It explains my point about Mace Windu surviving. Mace Windu lives on. Just like we saw with Ashoka, When everyone began to accept the fact she was dead, Poof, She pops back into Rebels. While I respect your arguement, I'm sorry to say that You have lost my lord
Mace Windu Should Return

Mace is dead. Sad, But true. We all saw him get both electrocuted by Sidious's sith lightning, And then get thrown a thousand stories down to the surface. Maybe he could have saved himself from the fall, But as he had just been shocked really badly he was in no condition to do anything to help himself. He is dead, No ifs, Ands, Or buts about it. Besides, Where would he fit in the movies? Rey is the last Jedi, Remember? Because of that, He couldn't play a major role anyway. Besides, Samuel L. Jackson is super old now.
Mace Windu Should Return

Mace Windu needs to return to the Star Wars films. Being the fact he was second in command to Yoda, He is a very powerful Jedi and there are many factors to cause his survival like simply landing on a speeder, Using the force to catch himself, And many more imaginable. Samuel L. Jackson even begged for it at Star Wars Celebration Orlando 2017. He made a claim that we have seen many characters coming back after losing a hand, And that there were many other factors that could lead to his return. Check out this short 1 minute video and be sure this is a battle you want to take part in. Not bringing Mace back will not just effect the men, But the women, And the children too. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=z6933n3anMc
The King James Version is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible

In light of the fact that my opponent F.F.'d last round, I fear that he may have abandoned the debate, thus I will just mention a few examples in this round before committing more time and effort to this debate.Isaiah 7:14:New International Version ("2011) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. English Standard Version ("2001) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The Hebrew word used here is "הָעַלְמָ֗ה", which means young woman, not necessarily virgin. (1)The Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה. http://translate.google.com...(1)http://translate.google.com...http://biblesuite.com...http://www.morfix.co.il...http://www.hebrewatmilah.org...http://www.reverso.net...http://translation.babylon.com...http://he.wikipedia.org...--------------------------------------------------------------Psalms 23:4New International Version ("2011): Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. The Hebrew phrase here (1) is "בְּגֵיא צַלְמָוֶת", the wordבְּגֵיא means valley,"צַלְמָוֶת", is a compound word made up of the wordצַלְ which means shade or shadow, &מָוֶת which means death. putting it together we haveבְּגֵיא צַלְמָוֶת means valley of death, not "darkest".(2)Now, admittedly NIV does a better job here with the translation, as it reads:"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."However, in my opinion, they got the order wrong. Shadows don't have valleys, values on the other hand do have shadows. Thus, the correct translation is "The shadow of the valley of death".(1) http://biblos.com...http://www.scripture4all.org...(2)http://translate.google.com...http://en.wiktionary.org...
The King James Version is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible

I accept. In this debate I will be pointing out errors in ESV & NIV, I will be drawing from both the original Hebrew bible aka old testament, as well as the new testament. Since I am more proficient in the former both in terms of content & it's language of origin, I will probably bring most of my examples from there. To clarify my position, I don't think that any of the slandered Christian translations are acceptable (anyone interested in what I personally use use and recommend, can P. M. me). My opponent stated "First Round is acceptance and clarification of position". So I guess I'll turn it over to him for opening arguments.
The King James Version is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible

Clarifying my position, I believe that other version of the Bible besides the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are valid. This does not mean that I support all other versions. I greatly support the ESV and sometimes use the NIV when talking with a less educated member of society. So, I am saying that the KJV is not the only authorized version and that other versions can be valid. This is not a contention, but a clarification of my opinion.
Deity of Christ

We can always expound further as the debate goes on. Interpreting Scripture When determining the truth of a doctrine, I submit the following rules: Implicit teachings should be interpreted in light of explicit teachings We should interpret scripture logically instead of rationalistically. We should avoid resolving tension unnecessarily. A doctrine that adheres to these rules should be considered stronger than a doctrine that does not. I plan to argue that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is the best interpretation of scripture because it does indeed follow these rules. Jesus is fully God. Jesus is explicitly called God and Yahweh (LORD) in scripture. [1][2] He also takes on other names of God, such as Alpha and Omega, King of kings and Lord of lords, and “I am. ” [3][4][5] Jesus receives the honors due to God alone: honor, worship, doxological praise, reverence, and so forth. [6] He also does the works of God, such as the act of creation. [7] Jesus even shares the incommunicable attributes of God, such as being eternal. [8] It cannot be said that Jesus was partially God or simply had a “little” of God within him. Jesus claimed to be fully God when he referred to himself as “I am,” something his Jewish listeners would have not mistaken. In Acts [1], the church of God is set to be bought with his own blood, implying that Jesus was actually God, neither separate from God nor a simple piece of Him. I have cited only a handful of the scriptures that teach this part of the doctrine. I do not believe any of these scriptures have been “violently taken out of context,” but I’ll let my opponent attempt to show otherwise. Jesus, while on earth, was fully human. Jesus was born. [9] He had a childhood and grew into a wise man of stature. [10] He was not merely some manifestation of God. He was an actual human being that walked the earth until being physically murdered on the cross. [11] His resurrection was fully physical, not an apparition of ghost, as he had to prove to doubting Thomas. [12] Resolving the Tension My opponent is violating the third rule of interpretation when he claims that this dual nature makes Jesus schizophrenic. He is trying to resolve what appears to be a logical incompatibility. Schizophrenia is a disorder in which a single person exhibits multiple personalities. This is not the case with Jesus, as nothing in scripture implies that Jesus had dual personalities. Conclusion The dual nature of Christ is logically sound when you consider that God is far more complex than our existence. Just because we cannot conceive how Jesus can be both God and man, does not mean it’s logically incompatible. Scripture says he was God and it says he was man. The logical conclusion is that both are true. The rationalistic conclusion (which would violate the second rule of interpretation), is that he was one or the other. I’ll let my opponent expound further before offering further defense of the deity of Christ. Sources Acts 20:28 Heb. 1:10 Isa. 41:4 1 Tim. 6:15 John 14:6 Mat. 2:2 John 5:19 John 1:1; 12:45 Luke 2:1-21 Luke 2:41-52 Mark 15:24 John 20:27
Deity of Christ

The Bible does not teach that Messiah Jesus is God come in the flesh; it does not teach in the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which says that within the person of Jesus there are two distinct, but not separate natures; this doctrine either makes Jesus a schizophrenic, or it makes him into two persons within one body, thus compromising the unity of his p. All of the verses which are used to prove the deity of Jesus are violently taken out of context, and can be much better explained in a way that does not make Jesus God. The deity of Jesus is a useless doctrine, in that it adds nothing to the Bible, the nature/character of God, salvation, resurrection, or any other important Bible topic. Those who believe in Jesus' deity think that calling him God exalts him; however, it actually demeans his person and accomplishments. Besides, if Jesus were God, then that would make at least two Gods, which completely contradicts monotheism.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

You held the burden of proof in showing that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. All you did was appeal to ignorance. That in no way disproves it. You claim that the universe does not require a cause. But you did not give proof for your claim. No proof or reason was given that the universe "did not become to exist". Your only defense was that it is possible. But no reason was given for this possibility. The Kalam Cosmological Argument stands unrefuted
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

I'm disproving the misconception that the Universe began to exist. That actually hasn't been proved. All that has been proved is the the observable Universe began to expand, and we can date this back to about 14 billion years ago. This does not mean the Universe began to exist, It just means the universe began to expand The Kalam Argument rests on the supposed "fact" that the Universe began to exist, which is the 2nd premise, but it's not a fact. Little is known about the origin of the Universe so nothing is conclusive The 2nd premise rests on an assumption not a fact, and as we all know you can't prove something to be factual by using an assumption, you can only use other facts to prove something to the true. Only facts prove other facts. I didn't necessary explain the beginning of the Universe just the beginning of the expansion of the our observable universe. It is possible that the observable universe pre-existed before it's rapid expansion, as a compressed, hot, and dense space as part of an already infinite universe.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

Ok, I think I know what you are saying. Now before I do anything else, I want to show what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is. 1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2.The universe began to exist; Therefore: 3.The universe has a cause. This is a deductive argument. In order for you to disprove it, you have to disprove one of its premises. What you stated was a little confusing. You explained what you think the beginning of the universe is. I think you are trying to say that "the universe never began to exist", which if you could prove that, would disprove the 2ed premise. There really isn't much for me to say. The only way to disprove the argument is to disprove one of the premises. So far, I haven't seen anything that disproves them. So, either you have to claim that everything that begins doesn't need a cause (that something can arbitrarily come from nothing), or that the universe has always existed forever (which goes against the 2ed law of thermodynamics).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

I will begin by saying that The Big Bang is a horrible name for the current scientific theory concerning the origin of our observable universe. As one video put it, it would be a lot more accurate to call it "The Everywhere Stretch". One of the most common misconceptions about the big Bang is that the entire universe was compressed into a single point from which it then expanded into the surrounding "nothingness". It is true that the observable universe used to be crammed into an infinitesimal space, but that space was not a single point, nor was the rest of the unknown or unobserved universe also in that same bit of space. The explanation for this is the magical power of infinity. Current data shows that the whole universe is at least 20 times larger than our observable universe, but that's at least. It could be infinitely large. And if you have an infinite amount of space then you can scale space down, shrinking everything to minuscule proportions, and still have an infinite amount of space. This would mean that space doesn't need anything to expand into because it can expand into itself, and still have plenty of room. Basically the Big Bang was a time long ago when the universe was a lot more squeezed together, and the observable universe was crammed into a very very small piece of that space. Because the entire universe was so dense and hot everywhere, space-time was curved everywhere, and this curvature manifested itself as a rapid expansion of space throughout the universe, hence the "Everywhere Stretch" Our current physical models of the universe are unable to explain, and predict what was happening before our observable universe started expanding. when it was super scaled down, however the question of what happened before the big bang isn't a good question because when the universe was incredible compressed, and everything was hot, and dense that our mathematical models of the universe breakdown so much that time doesn't even make sense. It's kind of like how the concept of north breaks down when your at the north pole. What's north of the north pole? You can only say that the rest of the world is south of the north pole. Another possible explanation of how the universe began is maybe an earlier age of the universe ended when space contracted in on itself because expansion wasn't happening fast enough, and then started expanding again due to high pressurization and in our stage of the universe it happen to be able to expand fast enough so contraction is no longer a possibility. The point is there are other explanations for the beginning of the universe, other than the Kalam argument which proposes to be the best and only possible explanation for the origin of the universe, that only God could have done it, and that's just incorrect. For more information on this you can watch the video for yourself here
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

Your are making the claim that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. I have a few questions about the claims you made. What logical fallacy does it use? How does the argument misunderstand the Big Bang? You use that definition of "existence". For what reason should we use that definition? You say that God violates the definition of existence. But why should God be bound by a human made idea/definition of "existence"? I hope you can clarify your claims for me! I pass it onto Pro!