BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill

As one reads the closing argument of my opponent, one question is left unanswered, "Did this dude even read the preceding posts? On either side?" Indeed, if this were a contest of showmanship, then perhaps my opponent would win with his John Grisham novel which left us all so riveted. However, as exciting as his stories may be, they nonetheless evade all of the arguments which have been given. This exchange has firmly established a number of things, First, we have seen that Brendan is a great supplier of buzz, giving articles and insights that enhance conversation, enjoyment, knowledge and overall appreciation of the world. Second, Brendan's responses to other people's posts and arguments have furthered debate, enriched exchange and made everyone's lives better. Finally, we have witnessed as Wrath of God has twisted and abused Brendan's gifts of knowledge leaving clear that if indeed Buzz has died, 'twas Wrath that pulled the trigger. Now I have returned to the more somber note which was earlier held and for that I apologize. However, it has been necessary, as Wrath has made clear, we are dealing with the serious offense of buzz murder. Can we help but to approach this subject with anything but the most sober recognition of the holy duty which justice has placed upon us? Judges! Rise now to the occasion which your responsibility as citizens of this website has set before you! Ignore the flashy lights of deceit with which Wrath has attempted to distract and vote as the arguments demand. The facts are clear, Brendan is no killer of buzz, but rather breathes life into buzz. I now leave you to vote as you see best. But as a final note, I wear these shoes because they make me feel beautiful and strong at the same time which is important when you have as stressful of a life as I do.
Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill

It is true, Brendan is far more liberal than both my opponent (hereafter wrath) and I. However it is this very juxtaposition of our philosophies that grants Brendan his "buzz" effect. Indeed, not only is Brendan not a "buzz kill" but rather he is a buzz provider. Contention 1: Brendan provides an enthusiasm for social reforms that sceptics such as wrath and myself have forgotten. I personally have read and supported wrath's arguments in the past which proposed that Brendan needed to tone down his enthusiasm and fall in line with the party establishment. While I agree that this is good politics and more likely to produce results, it is without a doubt a blatant murder of the buzz which Brendan created. Brendan's enthusiasm provides new buzz to every argument he encounters. Contention 2: Brendan is a steady supply of reliable, buzz enhancing information. There is no more active poster on facebook than Brendan and every one of his posts incites further conversation, debate, excitement and especially buzz. The mere fact that sometimes, in order to pursue what he perceives as truth and justice Brendan must call an unpleasant news does not in anyway negate the buzz which he produces in providing that information. Wrath's contentions basically amount to the single contention that Brendan has a history of being a downer when people are excited. Wrath has also conceded that these incidents arose out of Brendan's fidelity to virtues which Brendan holds as uncompromisable. Therefore I will treat as granted the fact that Brendan is acting in a sincere and productive manner in the given instances and rather focus on the buzz killing nature of those events. In both situations, the announcing of debate.org and the passing of health reform, Brendan acted to point out weaknesses and areas where improvement was needed. His objective was not to ruin anyone's day, nor to kill anyone's buzz. Rather, Brendan sought to demonstrate how debate could be better forummed and how health care could be better provided. His objective and indeed what was produced by the ensuing debates was an increase in buzz. After all, this very debate would not be taking place without Brendan's objections, nor would the many health care related debates we have had in the past. All of which have been great suppliers of Buzz. As a final point of history, I might add that even in the arena of enthusiasm Brendan supplies a great deal of buzz. The day after Barrack Obama, as we naively celebrated what was then believed to be a true turning point for our nation, and what in some respects has been, it was Brendan who showed the greatest buzz of all. Brendan sent me pictures of children dancing in the streets of Seattle and people lighting off fireworks in an attempt to demonstrate the buzz that then existed and that he hoped for the future. I urge a vote against this resolution not only for the fact that Brendan certainly is not a buzz kill, but further because he has consistently enhanced the buzz.
Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill

Brendan is a friend of mine. He's witty, smart, articulate, funny, but also. .. a buzz kill. Brendan tends to be a pessimist. He even said that joining debate. org with me and conquering all these noobs with our superior skills "looked like the worst thing ever". Therefore I affirm the resolution which states, "Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill". =Contentions= Contention 1) He killed my buzz about Debate. Org A couple of minutes ago I posted on my facebook that I wanted my friends from my Highschool Debate team to join debate. org with me. It felt electric as I considered recapturing the competitive spirit of speech and debate, the thrill of intelligent discussion, and the reward of voter commentary and decisiveness. While others shared my nostalgia, and eagerly encouraged it, Brendan did not. He commented on my status and said that the site looked stupid. He killed my buzz. Contention 2) Brendan killed my buzz for Obama's healthcare bill. Brendan tends to lean a little further left than most people, which I have always appreciated. But when the health care debates were running hot in this country, and I became a proponent of the reform policy (even as I was disappointed in how far to the right it eventually evolved) Brendan was ready to throw it out all together. I was excited when Health care finally passed, but Brendan mocked it as trivial and said it would have been better if it hadn't passed at all. I see his point, and he makes a valid argument, but still he killed my buzz when I was celebrating with others the unique and difficult passage of something vast and far reaching. =Conclusion= Brendan is a nice guy, and I find his cynicism refreshingly honest. But he's also a buzz kill. He's the kind of guy who reminds you as you blow out your birthday candles that you are one day closer to death, and that those candles were made in a Chinese sweatshop.
Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it

I want you to look up who Tony Nicklinson is and tell me why euthanasia was not a legal option for him? It was clearly his choice, and other people(judges and attorneys in the court system) made him live in lockout syndrome even longer. He ended up refusing food and starving himself to death. Your statements saying we need to find better medical research obviously doesnt apply to cases like such, and most patients who want Euthanasia have similar cases. Going back to what you said, your saying we should make people like Tony Nicklinson live if he doesnt want to anymore? (look him up for a better understanding of his story)
Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it

Regardless. Once you put down that one can choose to die, what do you do if that does become an issue in the court system and justice system. Lets sy someone is murdered and the person says that the victim wanted to die, what grants the doctor more powerful than a criminal why should a doctor be able to take the life. If anything the person should be taking his own life. It should be just suicide but this is about Euthanasia. Rebuttal"what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option?" Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.http://www.ethicsforschools.org...That is from the site i introduced here."We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do.Then you can not establish order or maintain a society. If we should not tell someone what they can or can not do then we should not tell people they can not murder, assault and things of that nature. Regardless of wether it is consensual it is still technically murder. Just as if i have a friend that asks me to kill them and i do then it is murder. Its under the same juristiction. "how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that?"Again it can be noted that doctors dealing with terminally ill patients, notice that the patients suffer from depression and lack of self worth. What if death is not what they want? What if they just want the pain to go away which as stated above can be temporarily aleiviated."If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period." This goes along with medical ethics. Doctors are here to help save lives regardless. You still have not show why it "needs to be" like that. Your argument is based around "if someone is in pain they have the right to end their life." 1. What about suicidal teenagers, adults, kids. You might say "well they are not terminally ill" but, since depression is classified as a mental disorder and one trys to take his or her own life that is the same boundries as terminally ill. That person is gonna try to kill themselves and its a matter of time before they do. So, do we allow it or try to fight it and help it? If one wanted to go as technical to say "everyone is terminally ill" one could. We are all guranteed to die and that death should be prolonged when it comes to terminally ill patients. Im sure there were millions of people in modern times who wished death could have been prolonged. We should not undermine the research and allow so much power to a doctor in these situations.My argument stands as1. It undermines medical research2. There are ways to allievate the symptoms and fight it3. Terminally ill patients often suffer from depression (http://jco.ascopubs.org...)4. Contradicts right to live.The second link is a study i found interesting that talks about terminally ill patients and how depression plays a huge part in decision making.
Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it

I understand what you are saying that we should not be allowed to take out own lives, but isn't that your choice to make? Why even live in this world if we can't make out own decisions. Yes there could be medicine but what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option? The process of euthanasia is a process with full consent from the patient, and the doctor can't even be in the room when they pass so it is completely the patients choice. We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do. Just think if you were in their shoes, how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that? It may be seem unconstitutional to most people but its not their decision to make, it's the patients decision and no one else should make it for then. If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period.
Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it

This is not about tony or any specific person. This about offering a process that should not be offered. If you use that argument then why should Tony die. Your overall argument has ignored every point i have made. I will not reintroduce any new arguments i will respond to what you said however. Again you have ignored my argument that these patients suffer from depression which can alter their decision. Which could mean maybe tony just needed a happier atmosphere. Killing him would affect his family. His friends and others. Last minutes should be cherished. Furthermore your argument is centered around the idea that ""If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period. " Not whether it is truly needed. Euthanasia should not be made legal due the key points that my opponent has not refuted.
European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

P1 Attack: right rīt/ adjective adjective: right; comparative adjective: righter; superlative adjective: rightest 1. morally good, justified, or acceptable. "I hope we're doing the right thing" synonyms:just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More Just. Short for the word Justification. Was it morally good? Justified, or acceptable? Since I made a no link rule I will just say I got it from website called Google. P2 Attack: Since I proven to the common voter that right means just I successfully capture P2. America or American citizens have no right/justification to be anti-immigration. P3 Attack: The truth is their is difference between them. Different language, food, music, and looks. It is amazing to be part of that, to have your OWN people. You are untied til death with a common companionship. Together as one a whole. Why would anyone want to disrupt that, it is technical invasion. People are entitled to opinions and mine is strong on this. They need to stay together and be one happy untied country. Let the others be happy, they clearly are. That is my point, mixture creates hate, and oppression, and unlawful trials and hate crimes. Ghettos, civil wars, and for the lesser to be worse off than the more. In Europe you don't have that. America turned out great until, a long bad choices of conservative values along with the economy and competition globally. It is not just, moral, and right for America to be anti-immigration illegal and legal. Most of the immigrants of the second wave and all on the first were legal yet received hate by earlier ones. The fact on Detroit and L.A. is true, I actually live about 5 miles from Detroit. The fact is true and it is because of immigration and oppression along with Italians hung in Louisiana, Irish hated in the north-east and Asians banned from here on the west coast. The Indians were invaded by horrible Caucasian settlers. They were conquered on the battlefield and instead of being completely wiped out they were given camps along with oppression. Many tribes have been killed in Europe along with vast empires. America still must maintain pro-immigration because since it failed people stop coming besides close to death, rape victims from Central America. P4 Attack: I trust your numbers and that means out of hundred 19 are not German? America has 97.3% immigrant population, also from Google. That is 97 out of hundred. Who's more? Italy has 8% immigrant not too far from Germany and closer than America. If I was living in Italy I would want to never have another food besides Italian, why? Pride. P5 Attack: There was a winner in the war, Korea still has concentration camps, Russia will try until it is wins or gets destroyed, the middle east conflicts deiced and preclude to the end of the world, and Australians had children. P6 Attack: I have already ripped your point with the previous one ;) I wait now...
European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

Okay I will do a very early rebuttal of your very complex points: P1 rebuttal: You say that no matter what a country even ABSOLUTELY HEINOUS they still have a right to do so? So Nazi Germany had a right to invaded foreign lands and commit a mass genocide of Jewish immigrants. Something that would be very hard to do if the Jews had their own nation in some are of the promised land. Also I accept your new written resolution. So your first supports my 2nd in saying that European countries have right to be anti-immigration. P2 rebuttal: Any country including America should not support illegal immigration and most illegals come from Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador. America has no culture, no official language and no really true anything besides Jazz and Hamburgers. Also with the 7 trillion using 602% of our resources...the voters can deiced on if that is true. I say about 300,000,000 using 97%. The rest are Natives. Your 2nd paragraph is irrelevant because I wish to talk about fully legal immigration. Yet 45% of all Italians came to America illegally and America didn't care because the times were different. P3 rebuttal: I am not arguing that one is better than another but they something very special and it forms to their lifestyle. Italians are Italians, French are French. If you let mass immigration you still have France, but not French. No one is truly American unless you are a Native American. Greece has a more different immigration history but nothing like America does. These countries have an identity which they should have a right to keep. Also even if immigration on a large scale occurred in these places it would take a long to intermix, creating ghettos, gangs, racism and eventually mixing of nationalities. Yemen accepts Muslims into their countries and Brazil and Argentina speak different languages, Portuguese, and Spanish respectively. America was a testing ground for hundreds of cultures and languages to mix together along with Democracy and if you look the test failed. P4 rebuttal: The reason behind Germany not losing culture is because the other nearby countries do not want to lose their people and also mesh with German culture. With this issue almost all of the European countries are on the same page. The problem with your second part is #1 They don't want anymore new culture and #2 they have Internet for that. Argument: America has did herself over for choosing the path she did and cannot go back. European countries have justification, rights, and just don't want to be pro immigration to preserve physical identity, language, culture, etc. I feel as though I have destroyed your points and now you must do the same. Looking forward...
European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

Reason for no sources. In debates that actually matter, like real life political debates or ones on TV viewed by possible hundreds of thousands need no sources and also lets true emotions run wild without wasting time trying to fine a possible wacky website as "proof". Argument: This debate I would want to be specific on European countries because recently many political parties have taken strong opinions on this. European countries have something call national identity. Take Italy as example: All Italians can be identified as Italians on common traits. They also have a common language which is their official language, Italian. They also share a common culture that includes religion, food, and music. If Italy followed suit with American ideology on letting thousands of immigrants come in, replace their physical traits. Influenced their food and music and made a wide range of religious ideologies it could not be called Italy. The countries in Europe have a rich history on which almost all people can relate to one another. If everyone was meshed together ethically they would be forced to form a confederacy or an union. These countries have an identity that sews the country-men together. America is founded on the notion: you can come here for a better life. America was a booming country with not enough men to do all the jobs needed so they gladly accepted immigrants to come work, make more money than what they would in their homelands and give their kids a better future. "...give me you poor, tired, huddle masses..." Statue of Liberty America became a great nation because of this but the country already was founded on immigrants and had a slew of difference ethnicity like Germans, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish, and English along with African slaves. So along with the American dream and ideology She has made the permanent notion that if you can legally come here for a brighter future. America cannot pick and choose when She wants to accept foreigners just because She have more people than jobs. America cannot just used poor southern and eastern Europeans for hard jobs like sky scraping construction or brick laying or house building. Conclusion: European countries have a national identity which even their names are contributed to their way of life language and personal identification. While America has founded the notion of accepting immigrants. Thanks for accepting and I look forward to future arguments.
European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

I accept. Before we begin, however, I would like to know my opponent's reasoning behind not allowing sources during a debate. I would like this at the start of the next round, preceding the actual argument. His choice to ban sources is extremely strange and, without proper reasoning, I may proceed to use sources as needed in order to provide the most informative and intelligent debate possible (however, given the debate topic, I have a feeling they might not be necessary).
industrialisation is better than environmental pollution

Industrialization is important but not as important as environmental pollution. Industries are fuelled by raw materials and where do you think we get those raw materials? From the environment of course. So how is industrialization more important than environmental pollution? That's like saying the crop is more important than the rain. The crop wouldn't exist if there was no rain. But the rain would still exist if there was no crop. So which one is more important? The rain. I'll keep this simple by referring to the book, The Lorax. I'm pretty sure everyone's read that book so you know what happens. In the book, the trees are the raw material being processed to create products. The products are being made so fast that the raw material can't keep up and soon disappears wholly. All the while, all the wild life has had to move away from the pollution. The manufacturing of products is important but without the raw material, there would be no industries. Exactly like what happened in The Lorax. The source of industries comes from the environment. If we destroy the source then the industries will no longer exist. As for all the wildlife, if we had no protection over the environment, we could practically run out of good fish to eat, run out of trees, all endangered animals would probably become extinct, our breathing air would become unbreathable, etc. This is already happening and if there was no restrictions we would destroy the world we lived in. Therefore environmental pollution is more important than industrialization.
advanced school programs should be kept and expanded

Just because there are barely any 'special' schools in USA for 'privileged' kids doesn't mean that there is a need for it.A genius will learn to scrape through school no matter how boring it is because they are smart. In fact it's nicer to them to let them be the 'best in the grade' rather than simply average for a genius.The disabled who have to have parents pay extra on top of school fees, because maybe there isn't a school for them close enough to home (they are only available in densely populated cities usually) then this is clearly an economic issue as well as the fact that while a genius can find a way to fit in with their peers, or are intelligent enough to seek help from teachers if bullying occurs, the disabled might get severely teased but find it too hard to come up with the right words for their parents.Helping the underdog is far more pressing a need than assisting the super to feel elite (which they do anyway).There is simply no need at all for these 'privileged' schools nearly to the degree of the opposite.Your drop-out statistics and boredom sources were totally irrelevant to the debate.I will now give an article on the issue (you have to pay to read the full thing but what he wrote so far is a good overview) http://www.jstor.org...