BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The only thing to fear is fear it self.

Well, Rolyatleahcim, first off, you have the weirdest screenname in the world. Regardless, you aren't proving the topic, because you aren't rebutting by disproof of the topic. The story about your little sister is explained under the scientific research I provided. Let me do that for you. You sister had a bad experience with spiders such that, whenever she sees a spider, she has a fear responds. Your sister probably sweats and her heart beats faster - unpleasant stuff. However, your sister probably finds that when she flees the scene, her fear is reduced. This process continues whenever she sees a spider such that her fear is reinforced. However, the fear was never reinforced by seeing the spider. Instead, it was reinforced by her desire to eliminate her fear. Her fear was only to the fear itself. Hence, there is nothing to fear but fear itself, even in the example you provided.
The only thing to fear is fear it self.

My little sister has an irrational fear of spiders. This was started one day when she saw my mom scream bloody murder when there was a spider on our kitchen table. My little sister was not afraid of my moms fear but only at whatever the spider represented that my mom was so afraid of. Would it kill them? My moms fear may have reinforced or even created my sisters fear but the fear was visibly of the spider which she thought might pose a threat and if my mom was that afraid she better be as well.
The only thing to fear is fear it self.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself" is absolutely verified by modern psychology. Suppose we are talking about a human, Ralph, being confronted with a spider, which he is irrationally afraid of. According to psychological research, Ralph's fear is not perpetuated by the visual stimuli of the spider, but rather reinforced by the fear itself, meaning very literally that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Let me explain the current psychological model of the conditioning of fear: Fear conditioning is the method by which organisms learn to fear new stimuli. It is a form of learning in which fear is associated with a neutral stimulus (e. g. , the sight of a spider). This can be done by pairing the neutral stimulus with an aversive stimulus (e. g. , being bitten as a child). Eventually, the neutral stimulus alone can elicit the state of fear. This state of fear is the only thing that we "fear". Phobias are perpetuated because people have a fear response that is a negative stimuli - feeling scared. When they "fear" the spider, they are rewarded with a reduction of that negative stimuli. However, the "fear" is only perpetuated by the fear response (the negative emotions of being scared) and not the spider itself. Hence, there is (very literally) nothing to fear but fear itself.
God exists..

RebuttalsLogicPro poses a question - "can logic change?" This question is irrelevant to the resolution, as Pro has not proven in any way that God can defy logic; logic is an essential limitation of existence itself, as proved by me via. semantics. And Pro also states the nonexistent word "hmm..."; I request voters to penalize Pro on S&G.The Big Bang Let me offer proof of quantum mechanical fluctuations. In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. [1] According to one formulation of the uncertainty principle: ΔEW10;t = h/4π. Here, ΔE represents the uncertainty in energy, and W10;t represents the uncertainty in time; h is Planck's constant, which takes the value 6.626 x 10-34 joule-second. [2] The explanation is that, for a temporary period, the conservation of energy can be violated, and this is proven. The violation of the conservation of energy originates in the quantum vacuum via. mass-energy equivalence and is called a quantum mechanical fluctuation. CausalityVia. quantum field theory, there exists a gravitational attraction prior to the existence of mass. This can further be simplified via. mass-energy equivalence, where with the existence of uncaused energy [caused by mechanical fluctuations], there can be an exertion of quantum gravity that creates a singularity. [3] Thus, this gravitational singularity need not be caused by an external force. This causality thus does not limit the Big Bang. [4]TeleologyPro has not rebutted my argument from randomness, nor have they proven that teleology exists. If teleology does not exist, then an ordering intellect most likely does not as a derivative of the dysteleological argument.OntologyThe conclusion of the ontological derivative of God was that God does not exist in any world. Pro says Pro accepts this, but contradicts it by saying God exists in the world of his/her mind. Then that is only the subjective existence of God, but "exist" is defined as having objective reality. Pro has not argued against my rebuttal relating to metaphysical possibility, instead merely further asserting epistemic subjective possibility. MoralityMorality is merely a way to survive derived from the human mind; I request Pro to fulfill their BoP [via. Russell's teapot] by proving morality is caused by a higher power.Occam's Razor1. Occam's Razor here justifies the non-existence of God simply because of the Russell's teapot analogy; by refuting all Pro's proof, I have used Occam's Razor to entirely shift the philosophical BoP to Pro, which Pro has not fulfilled. The interpretation of Occam's Razor, as stated, is valid, and these rebuttals do not refute the specific interpretation stated.As Pro has not fulfilled their BoP with verifiable proof, I extend my arguments.References [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] Wald, Robert M. (1984). General Relativity. University of Chicago Press. [4] http://goo.gl...;
Humanity has not changed much socially over the past millenium

I accept this challenge. I won't post any opening arguments in this round, but I'd like to make sure my opponent and I agree to certain definitions/rules of engagement."Humanity" refers to the human species as a whole. [1]"Social change" refers to alterations in the social order of a society, which may be driven by cultural, religious, economic, scientific or technological forces. [2]"Millennium" refers to the period between 1000-2011. Generally, events being used as evidence to advance either position should conform to this time period.Burden of ProofCon must provide relevant examples to show that as a whole, human society has significantly changed when compared to the early 1000s. Pro must either refute these examples and show that they do not demonstrate societal change, or provide compelling evidence to show that humankind and society have mostly stayed the same over the past millennium.Rounds 2-4 can be utilized in whatever way is deemed necessary, but Round 5 is reserved for closing arguments/rebuttals, and no new evidence or sources may be introduced.I hope that my opponent will agree to these terms. Good luck to both of us, and I await my opponent's opening argument.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Humanity has not changed much socially over the past millenium

Over the past few months, I have had plenty of time to watch documentaries and read books on human society over the past few hundred years. From all of this, I think I can draw one conclusion, especially when it comes to certain issues. We have have not changed as much as we might think that we have. A thousand years ago, Europe and the Middle East were being torn apart by religious conflict both between religions and between the sects of those religions. Christians fighting Muslims and Jews caught in the middle. In the Eleventh Century, militant Western Christians were battling Muslims for the control of the Holy Land and it is the same today. According to what I have read about Christian Millenialism and its list of signs that will come before the coming of Christs thousand year kingdom on earth, the creation of a Jewish state is one of these signs hence the support by Christian fundamentalists for the State of Israel in the Holy land. They see it as a stepping stone to Christs kingdom. This means the loss of land by the local Muslim and Arab population who consequently strike back with violent and political campaigns. Isn't this very similar to what happened during the crusades?
Humanity has not changed much socially over the past millenium

*sigh* While my opponent did forfeit two rounds, his attempts to refute my arguments fell far short of proving his resolution, and in many cases actually contradicted it. He cited the rise of social media, along with the growth of the Muslim population across the world. Are these not social changes? He essentially agreed that Facebook and Twitter has allowed for a greater sense of interconnectivity between people with his examples of the London riots, and I showed that this can further have positive effects. He ultimately only provided one argument towards sociey not changing over time (the religious wars), which is fundamentally different from the Crusades since the Crusades were encouraged by the pope. I really wish that he would have provided some further counterarguments to my position in round 3, but because of the forfeit, his arguments have been renderd invalid while mine stand unrefuted. Therefore, I encourage a Con vote.
Lower Tier Finials: Resolved: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings were justified.

This is the finials of the Lower Tier for the DDO Tourney. Rules Round 1 is for rules and definitions by Pro while Con accepts and/or chooses to define anyword Pro left undefined. Round 2: Opening arguments shall be presented. There shall be no rebuttles round 2. Round 3 Reubttles shall be made. Round 4: Rebuttles and conclusions will be made. No swearing No Trolling. No Semantics. Atomic Bombings- In August 1945, during the final stage of the Second World War, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in human history. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Justified- Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason: (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.

For an argument to be "legitimate" for this debate, all premises must be sourced from an accurate source (the Bible included, being the ultimate authority on the Christian God), and it must be impossible to deny any conclusions without denying any premises leading up to said conclusion, with the ultimate conclusion being, "God does not exist. " All attributes of the Christian God must be sourced from the Bible (New International Version). Both I and my opponent must follow the debate guidelines to the best of our ability. Nothing posted in this argument here shows any poor conduct. The proposed voting guideline should be followed by all voters. If you disagree to any of the above statements/rules/whatever, do not accept this debate. Instead, you can post which one you disagreed with and why, or post nothing at all, if you so choose. The debate guidelines: My opponent will post 1-5 separate arguments against the existence of God in this round. My opponent and I will debate over the legitimacy of said arguments in Rounds 2, 3, and 4. The proposed voting guideline: Spelling/Grammar: Vote normally. Conduct: Vote based on how each debater follows the debate guidelines and agreed-upon statements, exempting this round, which has been agreed to show no poor conduct. Arguments: Vote based on whether or not any of my opponent's arguments were successfully demonstrated to be legitimate. Sources: Vote for whichever person used a more adequate amount of sources. Sources should not merely be tallied up; rather, it should be noted if each debater supported contentions in need of sources with sources. And with that, good luck to my opponent, and let us begin. Note: The New International Version of the Bible can be found here: . http://www.biblegateway.com...
Should Virgin Trains keep the WCML

I'll here take the libery of defining the terms relvant to the debate since Pro has failed to do so.Virgin Trains is a U.K. based train company. WCML stands for West Coast Main Line which is an important and busy railway route in the U.K. Virgin Trains has recently lost the WCML franchise and is currently making an appeal to get it back.The Pro will be arguing that Virgin Train should keep the West Coast Main Line (presumably based on its supposed qualitative superiority). The Con on the other hand will need to deconstruct Pro's case in order to win the debate. Since this is the first round I'll only briefly expound on my arguments.-(A) FirstGroup (Virgin Trains' competitor in getting the franchise) made an offer of 5.5 billion pounds compared to Virgin Trains' 4.8 billion. Therefore in the interest of fairness and in the interest of the bidding process (which is the formal process for such matters), FirstGroup ought to be granted the franchise.-(B) Virgin Trains' case arguing that the bidding process is flawed in some way has dubious origins since VT only brought the case after it lost the bidding for the WCML. If it really stood by its current legal position it would have said something much sooner.-(C) FirstGroup is offering the same services for a better price. Since the venture will be paid for by taxpayers, costs ought to be minimized as much as possible. FirstGroup is offering the same deal for less money and so in the interests of the taxpayers they ought to be granted the franchise.Back over to Pro now. I must say British domestic policy isn't something I have much knowledge of so forgive me if I come off so.
Should Virgin Trains keep the WCML

Virgin Trains and First have been fighting to keep the WCML afterall of this arguement going on with the government. First contract would be alot higher than virgin contract and there is fear going on that first may struggle with paying the contract after 2 years They promise to have more seats. Virgin trains is a known trusted TOC with the lowest complaints and they offer to run the WCML cheaper than first but they can be trusted more and they said that they will carry on improving trains stations and platforms
Euthanasia

Life, one time you would be carried dear to your mother's heart and soon enough you would be grieving for her death, as time pass by they would be grieving for yours next. Then the next. A Complete Cycle. I am not in the right place to decide things for I have not yet encountered such events, though at the end of someone's death we have no choice but to accept. Acceptance. You cannot mourn forever, you have to continue and live your life. Then after successfully completing your job down here then there will be a life after this. A New Begining." By ending this argument, Yes, I have no resources nor facts or any specific details to prove my judgement, but it really depends on the person and the family to decide such fate, if they would turn the machines off it means they have not yet Accepted the death pf their love ones then eventually they would undergo this process. At the End it will still be the same, Death will still come. Just Live Your Life.
Euthanasia

"the decision would pass through the relative of the patient" What made you say this? Have you encountered Euthanasia already? Have you been in a hospital with a relative Of yours that is on the verge of dying and you cannot ask for his consent anymore? You don't have enough examples or anything that supports your argument. "time pass quickly. .. . What is the other option then? " True, but if you cannot ask for the patient's consent, it is still involuntary Euthanasia and is still considered MURDER. "it would never be a sin. .. .. Big word" It is a sin because the patient have not decided upon the matter yet. Also, Many doctors would disapprove this since it is the contrary to the vocation of medicine to hasten or cause death. In all cases, medical or non-medical, taking human life should be a last resort, and until our society has given appropriate attention to pain control, hospice care, and advance directive, doctors will not have met the criteria of last resort with respect to legalized euthanasia. That is all, after all there is no right or wrong answers in a debate. It just depends on how one answers the question and backs it up with examples and sources. I thank again my opponent for this debate. . http://euthanasia.procon.org...
Euthanasia

Yes it is but most of these types of illnesses can occur unexpectedly. Then the descision would pass through the relative of the patient, it is not considered as MURDER since such events can come as they go. Time pass by quickly then you'll wait and wait till the patient wakes up though the reality is he's far from us, we wait and wait but then the outcome will stay the same, what is the other option then? It would never be a sin since the one who's taking him is God. Life is a big word.
Euthanasia

Again, invalid argument. "same as dead since a proper living human is capable of breathing, start a conversation, and most of all can stand with his two feet." True, but also false. You need the consent of the patient regarding Euthanasia. Since in that statement you said that you cannot have a conversation with the patient due to the fact that he/she is the same as dead, does mean you cannot ask his/her consent. If you do Euthanasia without the consent of the patient that is considered an involuntary Euthanasia which is the same as MURDER. And commiting murder is a sin.
Euthanasia

First of all yes we do need the patient's consent and his or her family's though it is Euthanasia where you would oppose or aprove of this type of process which the doctor's would gladly recommend since it is just a repetitive cycle, when they decided not to remove the machines there is no difference either way, it's just the same since you would just see the person breathing but nor opening nor even start a conversation to anybody just proves that the person is same as dead since a proper living human is capable of breathing, start a conversation, and most of all can stand on his/her two feet.
Euthanasia

You completely forgot that there are types of Euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia means one asked the patient's consent about it. You claimed that "by removing the machines it would also ease a person's heart the same as saving all of the expenses". You cannot simply do that without asking the patient about it first. What if the patient chose to live and still wishes to fight, you cannot do Euthanasia. Even though the patient suffers from the illness or for whatever reason for being in the hospital, you need his/her consent first. You did not have specific examples to prove your claim.
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

I would like to apologize in advance for not posting my references in my previous post, and I will post them at the end of this post. I will start by addressing your previous points. Although the effects of chemicals such as BPA have little effect on the human body, or almost none, it is true that when present, the chemical transfers from the placenta to the fetus during development, and continues on to mimic the hormone estrogen. Even scientists who say that the results show a consistent point that the chemical shows little or no effect, Prins has stated "There are too many positive findings by reputable laboratories to ignore." The study that Prins and Ho also showed precancerous prostate lesions in 100 percent of male rats exposed to BPA but in only 40 percent of the control group. Even if the risk of a toxin being present in plastic exists, it should be eliminated (or replaced) due to the fact that plastic is so fundamental and is in use with almost everything people come in contact with. Also, although the plastic may still exist in the oceans or beaches for several years, it is still less than the hundreds that plastic will exist on the earth. This also effects the animals that consume the bio-plastic, because even when the plastic is consumed, the possibility for the plastic to decompose in the body is also available, thus reducing the number of animal fatalities. In the terms of economics, although traditional plastics are cheaper to make than biodegradable plastics, and other industries may be affected, this does no make for a decent enough argument for people to not produce bio-plastics. This is because biodegradable plastics may very well be easy enough to produce once the science is perfected and ready for mass production. Also, plastics such as PLA are created from starch, which is derived from corn. PLA has a plastic-like consistency, tolerates heat up to 120ï¿½F , and freezer safe. PLA also conserves energy by using about half of the resources that go into traditional plastics. Bio-plastic can also be more economically sound because of the reduced demand for fossil fuels, because they are created from biomass, they can reduce the demand for crude oil and such. And for the technology aspect, advancements in technology is constantly occurring, and biodegradable plastics is still a relatively new process to be created. New chemical compounds are always being created, some with similar properties to plastics currently being used today. There should be no limit with creating chemical compounds that are all biodegradable with the advancements in technology that take place every day. Also, the ability to recycle is still possible by some plastics, and is not impossible.
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

Hello bakhter, I will start by countering. 1.0 The impact of plastic on human health 1.1 You assess that traditional plastics could not be broken down by nature. That is true in the sense that it is extremely difficult for plastic to decompose naturally. Likewise, our bodies do not break down plastics. This implies that the majority of plastics simply pass through our body rather than being absorbed. This is supported by a study by Taylor & Francis which shows no significant leaching of PET bottles and no possible contaminations from hazardous chemicals even when present before. (Feron, VJ, et al, 2009) 1.2 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classification of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) as a B2 “probable human” carcinogen is based on outdated information. (John, D. et al 1998). New data suggest that DEHP and other plasticizers as not genotoxic. The error comes from the original study using in-vivo administration of DEHP to rats and mice rather than food consumption. 1.3 Again, I would like to re-examine the behaviour study in children to ensue there is no spill-over cause from environment pressure, changing cultural norms…etc. 2.0 Environmental issue 2.1 While I agree that plastic could harm the ecology with animals “getting trapped in 6 pack rings and blocking the tubes for the digestive tract once consumed”, this also applies to bio-plastic products as they too could last several years in the ocean or open land waste (Pearce F. 2009). The crux therefore is to consider proper disposal technics such as landfills. Given an opportunity, I would like to extend arguments of the following in the next round 4.0 Economics 4.1 Traditional plastics are superior as they are more economically viable to produce 4.2 Less spill-over effects to other industries such as food production 5.0 Technology 5.1 Ability to withstand corrosive chemicals and temperature 5.2 Ability to withstand shock and cushion impacts 5.3 Ability to recycle Reference V. J. Ferona, J. Jettena, N. De Kruijfa & F. Van Den Berg (2009) Polyethylene terephthalate bottles (PRBs): A health and safety assessment DOI:10.1080/02652039409374258 John Doulla, Russell Cattleyb, Cliff Elcombec, et al (1998) A Cancer Risk Assessment of Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Application of the New U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Volume 29, Issue 3, June 1999, Pages 327–357 Pearce F. (2009). Biodegradable plastic bags carry more ecological harm than good. The Guardian.