BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate.

I disagree with you that he was being irrational. He just didn"t want to blame himself. 1.) There was no way that anyone could have blamed him as he is not at all responsible for making check-list and scanning the documents.2.) He could have blamed the two subordinates also if he wanted to save himself.3.) If this is not irrationality, then those who are theists and religious will also say to rationalists and/or atheists that they (theists/religious) are not irrational as they also want to save themselves from any accusation. Why blame theists too that they are irrational? These theists are also rational if that supervisor is rational. You fit the idiom, "Pot calling the kettle black".Technicalities say that it is whoever was checking them to make sure. Yes he should have checked, as you said, and no he shouldn"t have just blamed you. When you said that "Yes he should have checked", you have yourself agreed that he was irrational. So, I have nothing more to add here now.He really shouldn"t have blamed you as you weren"t the "new" guy. However, you said he was in front of a "female subordinate ". He may have a crush on her and also be saying it was your fault so that he didn"t look wrong. 1.) He is a Dravidian, a race where most of the people in that race are black. He also had a dark skin and was from South India, a place where most of the inhabitants are dark. The female subordinate was from North India, and therefore an Aryan, a race where most of the people are either white or wheatish colored. I don't believe that inter-racial and mixed relationship functions, that too just by boasting as if you are at a senior level. 2.) Once again, There was no way that anyone could have blamed him as he is not at all responsible for making check-list and scanning the documents.3.) He could have blamed the two subordinates also if he wanted to save himself or boast his seniority towards that girl by becoming a hero for her to impress her so that he could have perverted 'mixed' relationship with her. LOL!I always learned that the higher rank is the one with control over the lower rank, and because of that, the higher rank is responsible for the lower rank.1.) There were two more subordinates below me to whom he never even said a word. 2.) If I was responsible to that supervisor, then he should have given me equal amount of authority also. Your turn!
My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate.

Just a warning, not quite sure what I am doing as I am new to the site. I disagree with you that he was being irrational. He just didn"t want to blame himself. Technicalities say that it is whoever was checking them to make sure. Yes he should have checked, as you said, and no he shouldn"t have just blamed you. He really shouldn"t have blamed you as you weren"t the "new" guy. However, you said he was in front of a "female subordinate ". He may have a crush on her and also be saying it was your fault so that he didn"t look wrong. I always learned that the higher rank is the one with control over the lower rank, and because of that, the higher rank is responsible for the lower rank. May the best man win!
My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate.

My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate. I used to work at a back office of Citibank where me and my two subordinates were responsible for scanning the bundle of documents and after that re-stapling them together. I being senior had the extra duty of preparing check list of documents, arranging them in order and then stapling them together. My supervisor had a duty of preparing a list of documents arriving in our office and documents going out of the office which should tally with each other at every round of arrival. Once it was discovered that one set of documents had been sent without scanning, which meant that either that particular set was attached with another document while preparing check list or while scanning. However, my supervisor kept on blaming me for an hour for that unverified mistake which he did not even bother to check that who was responsible for that. He did not even wait for the set of documents to arrive from the branch and said that he will be delayed as I made a mistake. He started making baseless accusations by saying to his female subordinate to become hero infront of her that now I will come to him after sometime and roam around near him and ask that is there any work left. When the set of documents finally arrived from the branch then it was proved that my subordinate had made the mistake of attaching two set of documents together after scanning them as check list was already made and attached with the sets of documents on both on the top of the sets. The supervisor just said "sorry" to me and moved on. My stand is that I claim that the supervisor was irrational as he did not verify that who made the mistake. All rationalist groups just protest against religion. However, I have never seen them protesting against these irrational acts. IF YOU THINK THAT THE SUPERVISOR WAS NOT IRRATIONAL WHEN HE MADE THAT MISTAKE THEN YOU CAN START A DEBATE. SERIOUS DEBATERS ONLY PLS. IF YOU PLAN TO FORFEIT THEN IT WILL JUST PROVE YOURSELF TO BE A FOOL AND A COWARD. THERE IS NO USE OF COMMENTING ON THIS DEBATE AS I WILL NOT READ THEM AND YOU LIKE A FOOL WILL ONLY WASTE YOUR MINUTES FOR NO REASON.
My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate.

First off, I am sorry for my grammatical mistakes, I was in math class and was in a hurry.What an excuse. You could have posted your debate later if you were in a hurry as you could have made time.Why exactly are we debating this? That is because most of the people do not verify before accusing someone and with this debate such people can correct themselves. This was in the past and you are just dwelling on it. I have better things to do than argue a pointless argument with someone who is simply complaining about his ex-supervisor. This is pointless? Supposing you were sentenced to life imprisonment or death for a crime which you did not commit, would you still say that it was pointless? If you say that this is also pointless then I must say that you are also irrational. Nothing is more important than a life of a person.Life is difficult and unfair, you can either complain or deal with it. If you think that I am "weak and cowardly" as those who complain for the minor reasons are the weakest of the crop. If this is minor then you are considering a life of an individual also to be minor which proves that you are also irrational. Supposing if he was a cop, he would have killed you in an encounter mistaking you as a criminal, then would you still consider this to be minor? Co-incidentally, the office where this incident happened was located in that area where two businessmen where shot dead mistaking them as criminals about 11 years ago from that incident.I know when an arguement is stupid. This one is the stupidest arguements I have ever seen. You cannot even spell 'argument' correctly and you are telling me that what is stupid? It proves that you are also irrational like that ex-supervisor of mine. Honourable Judges, with due respect again you should again note that she has made a mistake in spelling, "argument". I will not be replying again. Adios to you.As you wish, it is your loss. It proves that you are foolish and a coward too by just going away. Honourable Judges, if you still do not consider as forfeiting as a criteria for bad conduct or inconvincing arguments then I must say that you are prejudiced. This is the first time I have considered general audience as judges for a debate of mine and I hope you will not be prejudiced as she is a girl.
My ex-supervisor blamed me without any proof. Isn't he irrational? If 'no' then let's debate.

First off, I am sorry for my grammatical mistakes, I was in math class and was in a hurry. Why exactly are we debating this? This was in the past and you are just dwelling on it. I have better things to do than argue a pointless argument with someone who is simply complaining about his ex-supervisor. Life is difficult and unfair, you can either complain or deal with it. If you think that I am "weak and cowardly" as those who complain for the minor reasons are the weakest of the crop. I know when an arguement is stupid. This one is the stupidest arguements I have ever seen. I will not be replying again. Adios to you.
All energy drinks should be banned!

I look forward to your arguments. In this debate it will be my opponents job to show that energy drinks should all be banned, while my job will be to argue that not all energy drinks should be banned. en·er·gy drink noun any of various types of beverage that are considered a source of energy, especially a soft drink containing a high percentage of sugar and/or caffeine or other stimulant. all predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. ban1 verb officially or legally prohibit. Sources:Google Definitions[1]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Over to Pro,
All energy drinks should be banned!

It's pretty clear that my opponent has failed to debate here, and that I have won. For the sake of being a good sport I'll list a simple argument which will go unrefuted and will in turn cause me to win this debate. R1: All energy drinks should be banned! This isn't an argument, there is no reasoning behind it. It's simply a sentence. It doesn't even resemble an argument closely so we will disregard it. Which puts my opponent at literally 0. For everything. C1: Coffee and Tea Coffee and Tea can be defined as stimulants, there are many health benefits if you drink them in moderation. Banning these would have major repercussion on the economy[1][1] Ponte, Stefano (2002). "The ‘Latte Revolution’?
Free Trade is Better for the General Population Than an Overly Protectionist System

Hello, I will be debating this topic with you. I am taking the position that true "free trade" isn't ideal in today's society. Firstly some preliminary qualms: I have an issue with the topic of the debate: "Overly Protectionist System", you must remember the definition of "free trade" is "international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions". This means that even a single small tariff would classify the trade as not "free". Is that overly protectionist? Also, despite NAFTA's naming, it has numerous restrictions and regulations (NAAEC and NAALC for example). My initial argument will not be one based on strict economic principles since many economic schools of thought support heavy outsourcing, rather a mixture of economic, social, and ethical arguments. 1. Most 3rd world countries are able to beat out 1st world companies when it comes to manufacturing due to having no obligation to pay their workers a decent wage or benefits. Conditional tariffs are necessary to ensure companies are incentivized to raise wages and worker treatment. Companies that treat their employees humanely receive reduced tariffs. 2. 3rd world companies have very little environmental regulations and oversight. Similarly to employee compensation, companies overseas pay significantly less in operating costs with little environmental regulation. This makes 1st world companies significantly less competitive. As stated above, NAAEC built into NAFTA aims to improve environmental conditions, however it is not considered "free trade". 3. The United States' increasing focus on services and tech creates a chasm for low-skilled blue collar workers. The removal of 5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000-2014 due to outsourcing causes a strain on our welfare system and increases homelessness. 4. Tariffs on trade are the equivalent of slotting fees at grocery stores. We should absolutely charge companies to sell their products manufactured elsewhere here. Tariffs should be decreased as a country abides by human rights and environmental regulations to level the playing field and make the United States competitive again, while increasing the quality of life for those working in manufacturing jobs overseas.
Free Trade is Better for the General Population Than an Overly Protectionist System

Hello! I would like to start this debate in part because my economics are a little rusty, and I miss hearing protectionist arguments. Here, I would like to contend that a free trade system, or at least one with a heavy emphasis on free trade deals like NAFTA, provide great economic benefits to their citizens that outweigh any potential negative trade-offs. We will assume that the population being discussed lives in the 21st century, in a society which does have some social benefits (welfare) and not one 100 or 150 years ago that operated under laissez-faire. I would also like to imply that this nation is in the first world and is not a developing one, but I shall permit my opponent to challenge that claim, because this discussion/debate becomes particularly interesting when it concerns not America or Europe, but instead Africa, Indochina, or perhaps Latin America. My only guidelines are as follows: please be courteous, don't be a troll, and it would be really nice if you could provide sources to back up your argument. I have included four rounds: the first for acceptance and general opening statements, the second for presenting in-depth claims and arguments, the third for rebuttals, refutations, clarifications and additional elaborations and the fourth for closing statements. This isn't meant to be particularly formal or serious; I'm just looking for a good, thought provoking conversation.
Gene Therapy (Use)

Patients have ended the gene therapy procedure with unforeseen outcomes, yes, but this is another example of my previous argument about how in the beginning trails do not always work how they should have. People may come out on bottom, but they did make an informed decision on whether or not they would accept the gene therapy. The procedure is not forced, it is something that patients would have to ask to have performed, and before the doctor would conduct the operation, the patient would be informed about all possible outcomes. In this way, treatments such as gene therapy are much like skydiving or deep sea diving; most get that which they want but know that some have not and they could be one of the unlucky ones. Data can be made to say what the scientist wants, but with enough trails and enough tests the true facts will show through. Also, about what you said in regards to the everyday access to gene therapy being the demise of the human race, I highly doubt a process as powerful as this would go unregulated in today's world. People cannot be made to naturally be "smarter", only able to take in and process information quicker. This would only lead to people being as smart as what the schools they attend can make them, and crime rates could actually go down due to officers having a full education, whereas one in every ten high school dropouts is in jail or juvenile detention on any given day. These criminals are for the most part not nearly as smart as the police force combined with the technology they operate. Security would not be as much of an issue as you say it is; the people who design the programs the protect may also have had enhanced intelligence genes. Some people already have the minds and bodies that gene therapy would give them, as all the process is is the selection of certain alleles of a gene for people. This would not be playing "God" as you state but only doing the best with what we have. A limit that regulatory agencies could place to prevent people from calling it a hack of nature would be to restrict the process to only diseases and not cosmetics. This would bring up the discussion of "What is a disease and what is not?" I would say that any disease that would get through to be used in gene therapy would have to alter the patients lifestyle to a point that it would not be considered normal by a majority of people. In doing this, people still retain their diversity and the world will just be rid of the really bad diseases.
Gene Therapy (Use)

My statements were directed more to the fact that you can't always control environmental factors or unknown diseases. If a disease came from something that was not something we had encountered before, such as a mutation from man made chemicals or a new disease from atmospheric chemicals. The statements that you bring up about how gene therapy can help people is based widely what the media portrays gene therapy as. Everyone sees all of the positive journals in which case the procedure was successful, but what about all of the unsuccessful ones, or ones that resulted in a death? Many patients see gene therapy as a "cure-all" procedure, but are not aware of the risks and ethical implications. The data and point of views change based on who wrote the journals and who they worked for. There have been many cases of people being paid to produce bias data in order to help one side. An ethical implication comes up when you say that everyone should have the freedom to choose what diseases that they are vulnerable to or what hair grows on their head. When you think about it, should we really be playing "God" in any case? If everyone had access to gene therapy, it would ultimately to the demise of the human race. If gene therapy was cheap and more effective, and everybody used it to make themselves better, faster, smarter, and stronger,, wouldn't this lead to an increase to things such as crime rates? If people are as smart as they can be, what will this do to our securities? It will make them obsolete and at a high risk to be compromised. Gene therapy seems like good idea in theory, but in reality, it has many unforeseen complications biomed4all.com learn.genetics.utah.edu
Gene Therapy (Use)

You say that gene therapy is not worth the risks now but will get batter with time. How can it get better without people running trials on it? It cannot. Remember that what is now considered one of the safest routes to a cure started with over the counter cocaine and heroine. Drug treatment started by miracle "cure-alls" circulated by mobile salesmen. These drugs were unperscribed, did not have a recommended dosage on the bottle, and were not under any restrictions as to the concentration or volume of drug contained. What first started as a substance as common as today's cough syrup is now a highly illegal substance. My point is yes, the begginings of things may be risky, but over time saftey is increased. Also, you state that I want a world with no disease and the consequenses of such a world. You provide some very well founded points, but they are not all correct. Gene therapy can be used to improve the human immune system, and long periods of no disease does not weaken the immune system. When the body is constantly under the stress of fighting off disease, it is worn down and made easier to infect. The immune system can build the antibodies to fight off disease, but those antibodies are only effective for that specific strain. If humans could be made to build the antibodies without having to first encounter it, this would essentially eradicate that disease. If a new disease were to come, vaccines and a cure would be created and distributed as they are today. Gene therapy could make people immune to the AIDS virus, and even cure the ones who currently have it. In using gene therapy, people can expand opon their own options of how they want to be. They have a new freedom. All people want freedom, and the freedom to choose what diseases you arevunerable to or what hair color natually grows on your head is quite simply an amazing opportunity and an inevitable advancement.
Gene Therapy (Use)

Most of the time, the chance that people will be born with a disease of that matter is less than 50%. You may say that this is still a high risk, but do people still fight in the war or climb mountains knowing that there is still a risk? The same applies to this. People have children knowing in the back of their mind that there is always going to be a risk. The argument that you bring up about how the cells are not "living" yet is still a controversial issue. Who determines when a cell is living or nonliving? The current state of this statement is undetermined. Gene therapy is based largely on the "risk to reward ratio." Are the risks involved small enough to warrant people to go through with it? The answer is no. Although with time, like everything, gene therapy may get better and more reliable, but right now it is not worth the risks. Based on your previous statements, is it safe to say that you would like a disease free world? This appears to be your intentions with your statements, but have we really thought about the unknown world and the things in it around us? If everybody is disease and sickness free due to the alteration of their genes, what would happen if a disease or sickness unknown to man were to overtake everyone? Since everyone doesn't have to worry about sickness, their body's tolerance is low, so a single case of an unknown disease could possibly wipe out the whole human race in this case, or at least a huge fraction. Although a disease free world seems ideal with the help of gene therapy, it would not work.
Gene Therapy (Use)

You say that gene therapy in the germ line would be unethical. Your saying that it would be wrong to reduce the amount of people with disorders such as hemophilia or tay sachs disease? Find someone who will say that they would be happy to have their child born with one of these diseases and I will concede. The child may not consent, but it isn't exactly a real child is it? Sperm and egg cells only have one copy of each chromosome, and isn't a fully functional living cell. If the cell is not alive, would it have the right of consent? Dead bodies used in science are not given the option of consent, and the sperm that is killed by men using condoms with spermicide inside, which is in most condoms, also do not give the option of consent to the non-living. People do what they think is best for others, and the option of gene therapy is that, an option. Abortions are carried out at the least when the embryo is 10 weeks old. At this point it now has a heart beat and by many is considered alive. Gene therapy only can effect the person who accepted the treatment and the non-living half copies inside of it. People make many decisions that affect their unborn children, and not all of them are beneficial. Gene therapy is beneficial, and so it would not be a hard addition to the procedure list.
Gene Therapy (Use)

The statement that you made about germ-line and eradicating the disease brings up a big ethical implication. If it is affecting all of the offspring, doesn't that mean that the un-born children will not have a say in the matter? Are they also able to give consent to treatment in this case? You may say that it is the parents choice, but what about the children's children and their children's children? Did they give consent? The answer is no. Although it may have cured their line, they did not give consent and therefore this treatment would be a big ethical issue. Another thing I see in your statements is that gene therapy would be," the only hope of finding cures for such disorders." Who decides which traits are normal or which constitutes a disability or disorder? If gene therapy was used commonly, wouldn't it then make society less accepting of people who are different? Who is to say that everyone needs to fit the "cookie-cutter" mold and be the "perfect" or "ideal" human being? Diseases and disorders are the things that make all people unique, and without them, it would be a bland world without diversity. Saying that these disorders or diseases need to be cured is a statement that reflects the current state and views of today's society, not accepting the different. (ghr.nlm.nih.gov)