BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lowering Teenage Suicide rates

I personally know him, and I assure you, this will be a great debate. Contention One: Doctors A. Doctor's simply can't perscribe anti-depressants to whoever walks in the door. Just think about it. Imagine you're infected with the H1N1 influenza and you don't know it yet. You're sick enough to barely keep it together, and your insurance only covers for you to see a doctor at a local place before you can see anyone else. Surprisingly, you walk in, and the place is packed. Why is this scenario possible? This, ladies and gentlemen, is the result in passing my opponent's plan. If the general public knew that doctors will hand out free anti-depressants like free candy to teenagers, anyone could (and would) go seek medical help after a break up of three weeks in middle school. My response? Give me a break. B. Teenagers' Health Do you ever watch a commerical that tells the listener not to take the pill or medicine unless they're over 18 years old? There's a reason for that. My first source comes straight from my family myself. It's happend twice. Someone under 18 years old tried to take an anti-depressant, and she retrogressed into attempted suicide. You just can't give these things to adolescents. My second source is (. http://www.articlesbase.com... #). They might help teenagers, but parents aren't going to want to risk their children killing themselves over them getting over depression. Contention Two: "Solve" A. I'm sorry, but where are these so called "suicide centers". There's the suicide hotline which is (1800-suicide). It's free, so there's your number two. We don't need to hire counselors at the schools. The ones hired are already taught how to deal with this situation anyway. B. Honestly? Who wants to be put on anti-depressants unless you're in dire need? You're not yourself anymore, and when you're not yourself, you've reached a fate worse than death. Thank you everyone. Please vote con. :) -bexxx
Lowering Teenage Suicide rates

Medical doctors need to stop being leery of prescribing antidepressants to teenagers when needed. If doctors would start prescribing them (when needed) the teenage suicide would drop significantly. The United States Center For Disease Control has taken recent surveys from High School and College Students and these are the numbers -- 27 percent of high-school students said they'd "thought seriously" about suicide in the past year; 8 percent said they'd actually tried to kill themselves. -- 10.3 percent of U.S. college students admitted serious thoughts of suicide; 6.7 percent had a suicide plan. (Info from - http://help.doitnow.org...) Today, an estimated 276,000 kids between the ages of 14 and 17 try killing themselves each year, and more than 5,000 succeed and the numbers are still rising because nothing is done about the horrific problem During a 2007 study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported suicide rate in American adolescents (especially girls, 10 to 24 years old) increased 8% (2003 to 2004), the largest jump in 15 years. ( Info From - http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, many will report that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide but the increase is only temporarily. Also, I believe the United States and state and city governments could step into help this problem as well by 1. Opening more Suicide Centers 2. Having an on site Counselor that actually helps the students I believe that medical doctors do not realize that depression effects everyone from adolescents to adults.
Monarchy is Preferable to any Other Forms of Government

Via the rules I shall make my contentions this round and then attack my opponent's points and defend my points (rebuttal's) not round.Contention 1: TheocracyA theorcary is a nation that is ruled by religious leaders. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Why would a theocracy be preferable you may ask? Some nations are very religious like in the Middle East. There are two known nations that currently have a theocracy; Iran and Rome. Iran lives under Shirah Law where they live by their leader's definition of the Quran. While the Vatican is living under the rule of the Pope. The Vatican has lasted from the Papal states of Mid Evil Times. (http://www.ohio.edu...) Shirah Law states many things such as death to non believers, women can't drive (they basically have no rights what so ever), and Polygamy is legal. (http://www.billionbibles.org...) This is also picking up steam here in the US too. In Dearborn, Michigan, they voted to become the first US city under this form of government. (http://nationalreport.net...)Contention 2: Democracy A democracy is when a group of elected officials that Represent a whole come together and legislate laws for the nation. Currently there are over 100 democracies in the world today out numbering any other types of government. (http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...) Many nations are transitioning to democracies and are starting to enjoy the peace and freedom. (http://www.brookings.edu...) In democracies nation's economies are allowed to flourish and thus showing why many democratic nations are leading the world economy currently.
Monarchy is Preferable to any Other Forms of Government

To answer the question really quick, by that I meant that in the hypothetical system race or gender would not affect one's opportunity to become monarch. Now, My first argument will be that monarchies have, generally throughout history, lasted significantly longer than any other form of government. The longest lasting democracies haven't lasted more than three centuries, and republics haven't lasted much longer than that, however monarchies have lasted whole millennia before. Of course by this I refer to Egypt. Along with this, Monarchies have also brought many nations and empires to very prosperous periods that can easily rival our own nation's progress in the last century. For instance, after Caesar seized control of the Roman government, his empire had a noticeable expansion period which brought much wealth and trade to Rome and brought many more cities and kingdoms into the fold of Roman control. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.roman-empire.net... I would like to apologize for the shoddiness of my links, I'm currently unable to gather a larger and more preferable array of sources.
Monarchy is Preferable to any Other Forms of Government

The First round shall be for acceptance The second and thir shall be for arguments and rebuttals And the Final round shall be our conclusory statements In this debate, we are to assume that a modern day monarchy would have this hypothetical structure: Elected monarchs that rule for 40 years to a lifetime Monarchs are given dominion over the military, foreign policy, trade, and law making. There is a panel of advisors who's only authority is to prevent the Monarch from making decisions that would outright harm the nation. Sexism/Racism is not an issue Aside from this model, it is acceptable to utilize historical examples to argue for or against. Definitions: Monarchy: Government in which an individual or family controls law-making, justice, and national security Democracy: Government in which countrymen only vote on issues that affect all of them. Republic: Government that elects temporary governors to maintain the nation Monarch: Individual who governs nation as highest authority Government: System of positions that maintain, enforce, and create laws for a group of people
Can men and women actually be friends

The instigator did not make the resolution clear. By judging the tone of the resolution and Con's post in first round,I assume he is saying that it is not possible to for men and women to be actually friends. So, My job is to establish a possiblity that men can be friends with women. My opponent must prove that it is never possible for men to be friend with women. It is sufficient for me to only establish one situation where men can be friends with women in order to negate the resolution. Yes, men and women can be friends in some certain situations. Gay men are men. By definition, Gay men have no attraction toward women. So, they can be just friends.
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

This debate stems from a forum discussion : http://www.debate.org... To clarify : Empirical falsifiability is as defined by Popper[1]. To affirm the resolution then one would have to design an experiment which would produce a set of observations which would refute any personal witness of the holy spirit. Witness of the holy spirit is personal revelation of the divine, spelled out in some detail by William Lane Craig one of the more prominent Christian apologists [2] "By that I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it. " [1] http://www.stephenjaygould.org... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

I had always framed this issue in regards to any given claim of divine witnessing and the only point I made was that any given experience can be proven to be false. I never claimed that divine witnessing itself was impossible, only that it had yet to be substantiated. I cannot believe that he would not have ascertained my position and I can only assume that his goal was to make me run in circles while intentionally ignoring what it was I was trying to say. I am insulted by his disrespect and dismayed at his maliciousness. Please vote for Con. I doubt his ego could survive it if you didn't.
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

As noted clearly in the opening, this debate stemmed from : http://www.debate.org... where Pro argued that evidence commonly used by theists such as witness of the holy spirit is actually empirical in nature and can be falsified. This was part of a claim by Pro that all evidence had to be empirical in order to be considered evidence, an outdated approach to knowledge which is known as positivism, extended to logical positivism when it includes reason. As one of the main proponents of positivism has noted : "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." Yes the resolution is false, obviously that was the claim being made - hence Con. However consider for example "The existence of hyper-mass particles due to high energy string vibrations is an empirically falsifiable fact". This resolution is true because all that has to be done is generate energies of which string theory theory predicts that the string vibrations would generate much higher mass versions of elementary particles. If these energies are generated and the particles are not measured then of course the theory is falsified through empirical measurement. In opposition, it is not possible to produce an experiment which would force the holy spirit to manifest and in such a way that the manifest would be observable through empirical means - of course it should be obvious that this is true because such an experiment would answer the question does God exist and some fairly great minds have struggled with that, and will continue to struggle because by definition the holy spirit is outside of measurement it is not constrained by definition to the physical reality we can observe. [1] Hanfling, Oswald (2003). "Logical Positivism". Routledge History of Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 193f.
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

I am disappointed to find that I have apparently been duped. Here I thought that my opponent was providing me with an honest and arguable debate and now I learn that he was simply setting me up with a logically inarguable position. Instead of debating whether or not a given claim of divine witnessing can be falsified, Con now claims that, what I was supposed to do was to disprove the existence of divine witnessing altogether. In other words, he expects me to prove a negative. I'm sorry that I didn't realize what Con was up to sooner. I'm not sure what upsets me more, my gullibility or his dishonesty. If this is the extent to which he is willing to go in order to feed his desire to be seen as correct, then I will forfeit. I have no desire to waste my time in this matter.
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

I would like to begin this round by pointing out that my opponent's ground rules did not include the definition for empirical evidence that he linked to in round 2. This is not the definition that I would use for a discussion of this sort. Instead I would prefer the following: http://wiki.answers.com... My opponent provided an example of what he would consider to be the proper way to empirically falsify a claim. I would like to provide an example of my own to demonstrate my point of view. I claim that Mickey Mantle hit 536 career home runs. Now if I were to test this claim by going up to several people and asking "Can you say for a fact that Mickey Mantle did not hit 536 career home runs?' I doubt that anyone would say yes. This would seem to verify my claim, but this is exactly what Karl Poppler described as an unscientific test. Poppler, according to the text my opponent provided, states that, in order for a claim to be scientific it must be tested in a manner that is designed to refute the claim. Nowhere does he say that these tests need or require metrics or measurements. The experiment that I would conduct in this case would be to consult a valid and respected reference guide that lists historical baseball statistics.[1] Note that this test has the required risk factor as the guide may show that Mickey Mantle's career home run total may not be 536. As I read the statistics, I am directly observing the results that will either prove or refute my claim. The answer will either be true or false with no middle ground upon which to make any measurements. Likewise, the test that I presented in round one - to ask, "Do you believe it was what it appeared to be?" - is a simple true or false question. Now Con has indicated that because we are talking about a personal experience, which he contends must be, by definition, subjective, that it cannot be measured empirically. But according to the definition by Dr. Craig that Con provided, the subject doesn't just experience the event subjectively but objectively as well. Thus his personal experience would be an empirical observation of the experience and he would either be certain it was real (true) or not certain (false). In other words, according to Dr. Craig, in order for the experience to be a true witnessing of the Holy Spirit, the subject must be objectively certain that it is an actual experience of the Holy Spirit. If there is any doubt at all, it is not, by Dr Craig's definition, a true divine experience. Since either answer is possible, this meets Poppler's criteria for being falsifiable, and thus, scientific. And, because the results are obtained by direct observation it is, technically, empirical. [1] http://www.baseball-almanac.com...
The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

"So, if the subject is totally and completely convinced that they have indeed experienced a personal witnessing of a divine entity then, for them, it is a fact. The empirical evidence was the experience itself." In short, as with most of the response by Pro, this is an argument for knowledge in spite of lack of empirical evidence. Now one could argue that divine witness can be a true belief, or knowledge - but this is not at all the same as asserting that the event can be empirically falsified as noted by Popper. By definition empirical evidence is that which can be sensed, meaning it can be measured[1]. An individual who has a personal (by definition subjective) divine experience of the messenger/voice of God can not claim to have empirical evidence simply because they had an experience they have to have measured it. Note clearly this is only the first step because the resolution does not simply state the event is empirical it notes that it can be empirically falsified. To prove that witness of the holy spirit is empirically falsifiable Pro has to -Note what measures the manifestation of the holy spirit and what is being measured -The metric, this means the thing that quantifies the measuring (produces a number) -An experiment (a set of conditions by which anyone can replicate the event and perform the measurement) -The results of the experiment (the measurements) by which the observer can tell if the witness happened or it did not happen This is of course the very familiar verification/falsification part of the scientific method which is founded on inductive empiricism. So for example, to empirically falsify gravitational attraction : -The measurement is of the attraction between the two masses which has a direction and a magnitude (it is a vector) -The metric is force which is measured in Newtons (SI units) by any number of probes -A experiment can be as simple as to drop an object of a known weight -The observations will be the speed of the object during the fall, and gravitational attraction is falsified if the speed as a function of time does not produce a=g. This is what is needed to show an event is empirically falsifiable. [1] http://sociologyindex.com...
Voucher programs are a very bad idea

Well, I must say I am somewhat disappointed in my opponent. In round 3, pro repeatedly copies and pastes arguments from round 2. As I have already rebutted most of his argument from last round, I shall not bother to repeat myself. My opponents have plagiarized before, but never from themselves. I guess there's a first time for everything. My opponent addresses one of my points. I apologize for slightly misstating a point. I stated "Funding for public schools is the highest in the world per pupil." I meant to say it is one of the highest in the world. As this does not affect my argument in the slightest, it doesn't affect the debate, but I do thank pro for pointing it out. Other than that, pro has dropped every single one of my arguments. Again, I am disappointed. Pro does make a few limited points, however, that need to be addressed. He claims that a lack of federal regulation can result in children being educated as white supremacists or radical fundamentalists. There is a fundamentally deeper point with very dark implications in this point. The premise of this point is that government has the obligation to purge beliefs it deems undesirable and reinforce beliefs it deems desirable. This type of intellectual totalitarianism is abominable. The government has no business determining what beliefs are correct or incorrect and has no right to indoctrinate children as it sees fit. The Nazi party used the same methods when persuading people to hate Jews and trying to justify the Holocaust. [1] There is a name for indoctrinating citizens to blindly accept a national identity whilst quashing criticism: fascism. [2] Pro claims that public schools are traditionally efficient, but provides no evidence for this claim. In fact, schools have traditionally failed to educate poor, inner city students. [3] Pro then claims that we should ban home schooling and regulate private schools. Again, this concept of trying to control thoughts is morally reprehensible. In conclusion, pro's argument was mostly a copy of his last argument, which I have rebutted. Pro has dropped all of my arguments from round two. Pro wants to indoctrinate all students in "unity of culture" and "American Values" at the expense of freedom of belief and poor, inner city students in failing schools. Pro offers no constructive solutions to the problem of failing schools. Pro is blindly devoted to endlessly repeating a failed case. Sources 1- http://research.calvin.edu... 2- http://dictionary.reference.com... 3- https://web.stanford.edu...
Voucher programs are a very bad idea

Your claim regarding education funding seems to be false. http://nces.ed.gov... There seems to be an unspoken and hidden agenda to change the public education system to where it's not even recognizable. It's right out of the playbook of a national movement to eviscerate government in favor of private and for-profit enterprises. Vouchers are a plan to put tax money into private hands, it's not about education at all. Only the religious right will go along for the possibility of teaching biblical science in schools not subject to constitutional scrutiny. The voucher and online school plans are a product of ALEC, and are designed to profit ALEC members. In the shared experiences of public school, we form a unity of culture, and of purpose. Public schools are where we build citizens. If we only think of schools as places to learn facts, history, and skills, then we risk undervaluing the other, equally important functions that schools perform. Lately, there has arisen a pattern of denigrating and underfunding public schools while at the same time allowing easier withdrawal from the public system in favor of private schools and in-home education. This should not be allowed to continue. If the shared experience of public school builds citizens and nations, education outside the system works against those goals. Whether or not they intend it, home schooling and private schooling serve to separate us rather than bringing us together. As long as a home schooled child can do academics at a minimum level, there is no control regarding what else the child is being taught. Children of white supremacists can be educated as white supremacists. Children of radical fundamentalists can be educated as radical fundamentalists. The result is a fragmented population with no common purpose or shared values. The nation weakens, and the culture that makes us Americans is fading away. We must not destroy the public school system, and in fact we must restore it to its' traditional efficiency and function. Do not allow home schooling except in cases where the child cannot, for good reason, attend a public school. Private school curricula should be closely monitored to be sure that divisiveness is no part of what is taught. No public funds should go to support either home schooling or private schools of any kind, excepting only specialized facilities for special needs children. http://billmoyers.com...