BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Pro brought up religion in round 2 so I came back with a debate that backed up his argument but he has failed to answer my my statement that faith is evidence instead he goes off into another statement without finishing the religion portion therefore you have failed to argue this topic incorrectly. Lets use some scriptures since were on religion to clarify. 1 John 5:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen This next scripture is first off a belief then followed by evidence. Genesis 1:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. sources :http://www.openbible.info...
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Con, you begin your argument by claiming that regardless of where the pendulum swings there is equal amount of both on either side. False, your statement is false. My argument has been that evidence is more important because it stands alone. Evidence without belief is still accepted, belief without evidence is laughed at. Contention 3- The way this debate will be decided is through EVIDENCE. So basically what I am saying here is that because of my first 2 contentions and answers to your arguments I have provided the debate.org community with enough evidence to vote for me. It doesn't matter how much I believe or you believe that tou won, plain and simple the outcome is decided on evidence. So, even in this short (but powerful) contention we can see that once again evidence is shown to be the most important value to society in this round, for without it a winner could never be decided.
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Contentition 2: The funny thing about faith and evidence is that no matter which way the pendulum swings, there is equal amounts of both on either side. It requires just as much faith to believe that there is not a God, as it does to believe that there is.Believers find just as much evidence in their world that there is a God, as nonbelievers do not. What I am trying to say, and this must be a very difficult concept to grasp, (because I am not having any luck convincing either side of this), but for every bit of evidence that there is, there is an equal amount of uncertainty. That makes both side completely even. Is truth merely what is real and right to me? Or is it more? Is proof a matter of personal perception of reality? You can't ever have a faith vs. Evidence because to a believer faith is evidence. Its simply about what you feel deep down inside is real and right to you. What is real and right to me may not be real and right to you. Its Moot to even have arguments about who is wrong or right spiritually. Also if someone has faith evidence is worthless unless it"s something so overwhelming its life changing. Because only something that powerful could cause someone to change their perception of their reality While it is true that faith requires some element of the unknown, i think most people wrongly presume that those who do have faith- do so blindly without any intelligence, thought, or proof. Faith is not completely blind! There are things that you and i have faith in that we do not completely understand (ie: gravity, or even our automobiles). But we make judgements on those things based on our interactions. The Bible is historically, aracheologically, and experientially true. In addition there are numerous prophecies that have proven to be true.
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Con, there is no need to redefine the words. My definitions meet the same criteria as yours so lets leave those standing yea? I will begin by addressing the top case of the first con argument: Your argument is that, "In order for these people to try these medicines they have a belief that they will work, even if they don't have evidence they do research and they believe and have faith that the product will indeed work". My argument is that it sounds that what you are speaking to is The Scientific Method, The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. (Evidence) Here again we see that although the belief in something, in this case leeches or medicine, might be a starting point for something that if the end result does not validate (provide evidence) than it is merely discarded for it is worthless. In this example (which you provided, thanks for that!) further proves that evidence is clearly the highest value in this debate. Now here is contention 2: Come one, come all, follow Christ (or any other world religion)! Religion is the one thing that brings millions and millions of people together to believe in something (have faith). Like with all faith and religion, they are EVIDENCE BASED. I will use the Christian faith as an example because I am familiar with it. The entire religion (organization) requires the belief in the following: the bible, a sacred text that tells stories and articulates the doings of God. In it are hundreds of pages that are full of EVIDENCE for the acceptance of God and Christ. The Cornerstone of the faith is the resurrection of Christ, and simply by saying that he resurrected was not enough, so they documented it in the bible (EVIDENCE). Therefore without the bible (the evidence of the church) the entire church would be non-existent, it would dismantle and be nothing. People do not just give their lives on the word of someone that has an inspiring message about salvation ect. They need evidence to make that change, people of this faith are taught to point to the bible when engaging non-believers; because it is the evidence of the church. Once again, evidence has proven to be the highest value in this debate.
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Belief (Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.) Evidence (A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.) Pro brings up contention 1 which has to do with people using medicine without them being tested. In order for these people to try these medicines they have a belief that they will work, even if they don't have evidence they do research and they believe and have faith that the product will indeed work Lets use leaches for example Leaches(1.Any of various chiefly aquatic carnivorous or bloodsucking annelid worms of the class (or subclass) Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly widely used by physicians for therapeutic bloodletting) Many doctors say that using leaches as a detox for your body is bad. Leeches are not inherently dangerous, but the bacteria that live in and on them due to the conditions they live in can be dangerous. You can actually get leeches that have been grown in sterile conditions from a hospital pharmacy. They are still used to keep blood flow going to small parts like skin flaps and reattached fingers. Their saliva has a great natural anticoagulant, and the mild suction keeps the blood vessels in the area open. That being said, leeches are not going to cure "an allergy in your blood" by bloodletting. I'm not sure whether you mean you have an allergy or a blood disease, but they are very much not the same thing, and would be unlikely to be helped by leeches. Please ask your doctor to explain your disease to you again, because you have obviously misunderstood something. There are a few rare diseases (hemochromatosis, polycythemia) where it can actually be a treatment to remove some blood occasionally, but that is done at the hospital or at a Red Cross blood bank, not by removing the small amount that a couple of leeches could get. If has been proven that leeches can cause a bacterial infection, but people still d it anyways not because of the evidence but because they believe it is beneficial.
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

I will argue that for society to exist in its current state, evidence is the most important thing for it. Round 1 is definitions and contentions in proving your value. The rounds to follow will be on-case arguments/rebuttals. Observation 1) Definitions: *Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. *Belief: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Observation 2) Voting Criteria: Value hierarchy, meaning that when posing these two values and making them conflict one is higher up in the hierarchy than the other. (Imagine a "V") Observation 3) Contentions: Contention 1- Voodoo Science: Throughout history there have been people (snake oil salesmen) that preach and sell remedies for problems and bank on the inherent belief that people give them. These same people spend (waste) their hard-earned money on something WITHOUT evidence and loose out on the money and live through very negative consequences, such as: sever side-effects, loss of bodily functions and even death. Here we can see that without evidence than belief becomes obsolete and unnecessary it is only through evidence that society can benefit. Even in modern times (2014) these same snake oil salesmen continue to thrive. There are magic diet-pills, "holistic" approaches to curing cancer and AIDS, but once again without evidence these items get marketed with belief that they will work and they don't. Time and time again you can see commercials on the air about a medicine that was supposed to do something but did not and, "if you know a loved one or have yourself taken this pill, call this number because there is a law suit you can be a part of"... you get the point. evidence is clearly the most important value to society considering only the two here.
sandy is cooler than spongebob

All of my opponent's arguments are null because such things do not make one cooler. Something is cooler if it is "more cool" and something is "more cool" if it has a lower temperature. Sandy is a squirrel [1]. Squirrels are warm blooded [2]. Therefore, Sandy is warmblooded. Spongebob is a sponge [3]. Sponges do not have an internal heating system, and therefore take the temperature of their environment. This environment in SpongeBobSquarePants is the bottom of the ocean [4]. The bottom of the ocean is cold [5]. Therefore, Spongebob is cold. When we analyze Spongebob and Sandy, it is easy to see that Sandy will have a temperature of about 95 degrees Fahrenheit while Spongebob will have a temperature of about 33 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, Spongebob is cooler than Sandy. The resolution is negated. Thank you. [1] http://spongebob.wikia.com... [2] http://funkman.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.windows.ucar.edu...
The Pokemon TV Show Should follow the Exploits of Red, not Ash.

++++++++ Refutations ++++++++ "Ash, from the show and the manga series, was 14 years old, was in school, took a test to start becoming a trainer and then he caught Pikachu himself. " [Ash did not catch Pikachu in the TV show, Ash was gives Pikachu as a starter. This information is found in my above source [2]. ] ~~~ "Red was a character made by Nintendo to allow you to have a choice on who you want to be. In the later games, Silver for example, he was the last challenge you had to face. Why would someone want to create a show on how a random child becoming something great and then leave him in a cave to wait a challenger? " [It is obvious from this statement that my opponent did not check all of my sources. With the first statement I believe that my opponent is referring to one of the default options in Pokemon Red Version to name yourself Red. My opponent is also correct in stating that the Red character in Pokemon Silver Version is the same character from the manga Pokemon Adventures. My opponent incorrectly states that Red is simply some random character that got good at Pokemon and sits in a cave and the hypothetical show's story would follow that of the manga Pokemon Adventires. ] ~~~ My opponent accepts my first contention which is evidence in my favor and failed to refute the other two contentions. I ask my opponent to read the information found in above source [1]. This source explains that Red is not just some random trainer but has a whole story of his own.
The Pokemon TV Show Should follow the Exploits of Red, not Ash.

As you say yes Red did have to earn his Pokï¿½mon but you have to realize is that to show a series of events you have to connect to the character. Ash, from the show and the manga series, was 14 years old, was in school, took a test to start becoming a trainer and then he caught Pikachu himself. Red was a character made by Nintendo to allow you to have a choice on who you want to be. In the later games, Silver for example, he was the last challenge you had to face. Why would someone want to create a show on how a random child becoming something great and then leave him in a cave to wait a challenger?
Why the Driving age should NOT be raised to 18

There has been a recent poll of adults who believe that raising the driving age to 18 will decrease the amount of crashes that cause adolescents their lives. That is just simply not true at all. Not only will it just cause 18 year-olds to crash, the young adults crash rates will increase as well. Not to mention the inconvenience of economical, social, and educational troubles of 16 and 17-year-old lives. For this debate I would like to see the side of view that can have a reasonable turn-out if we change these regulations, or laws.
Why the Driving age should NOT be raised to 18

Well, since I am new at this, I was not to assume that that round should be of just acceptance, because I am just starting my first debate, but to begin it is a fact, stated by the United States Census Bureau, that drivers in their twenties have the same ratio of accidents as teenagers as low as sixteen. As stated by the United States Census Bureau in their Licensed Drivers and their Numbers of Accidents by Age data chart, licensed drivers that are 16 are at the rate of 1,311 drivers per year, and only 500 of them occur in fatal accidents, while there are a total of 3, 404 licensed drivers and 1, 400 of them occur in fatal accidents. That is roughly the same percentile of accidents caused by 16-year-olds and 20-year-olds. Then on top of that, it is just reason of the mind, or the ethos part of the mind, that many 21-year-olds will start to drink when it is legal, so the stimulants of alcohol will cause them to be in many accidents. (1) Now, the age has been discussed to be raised to the age of 18, not only will that increase the accident rates of 18-year-olds, it will increase the accident rates of 20-year-olds and up, because they will not nearly have enough experience in order to be able to drive efficiently. The reason that many teenagers start driving so young, is in order to get experience. It is not the age that effects their ability to drive, for teenagers have remarkably quicker reaction times to adults. Take into example, that mine is 0.8 seconds in order to establish a reaction to the task at hand, while my mother's, which I have tested, is 1.3 seconds. It is not the age, it is the actions of the adolescents themselves. In which I propose that we increase the time of the learner's permit, not the age in which we may get our driver's license. (2) (1) http://www.census.gov... (2) http://www.standard.net...
Final Fantasy 9 is better than Final Fantasy 8

Final Fantasy 9, in comparison with FF8, is far superior. I am mostly hoping to focus on gameplay rather than plot in this debate. I will being by pointing out the gamplay flaws in Final Fantasy 8: 1. There are no character classes. In most every FF all the characters are eith of a certain class (ninja, mage, etc.) or you can make them into one. But FF8 doesn't have that at all. The characters do not start in a class and they cannot be declared a mage or a fighter. They are all generic characters with no class whatsoever. 2. No weapon choice. Unlike ANY other FF game, you cannot go and buy a weapon. Characters must upgrade the weapon that they start with, and weapons cannot be upgraded in the first or most of the second disc. Many people play FF games becasue they love the customization of the game. But you don't get to buy weapons at all. 3. NO ARMOR. FF 9 has 4 classes of armor (body,head,arms,accessory), while FF8 has none. NONE. Your perosn wears the same thing from beginnign to end. This completly eliminates any character customization. 4. GF's. I am a huge fan of summoning, but only when certain characters are allowed to be summoners. In FF8 any character can summon a GF without using any MP, which means they can summon virtually unlimited times. This makes boss battle INCREDIBLY annoying. Since the power of the GFs is several times more than that of magic or physical hits, all boss battles are are constantly summoning the same GF. All a boss battle is is hitting the GF button and using the occasdional cure spell. 5. Limit to number of abilities. Whats up with that. You have to choose 4 of the following (attack, GF, draw, magic, items). How does that make sense. 6. Low strength of magic and physical attacks. By the time the player has access to high power magic like Blizzaga, their GFs have long matured into being much more powerful. THere is absolutely no reason to use magic in the games. And physical attacks are even worse. They never = the power of Gfs. for example, in the beginning I struck 69 with attack, 92 with thunder, and 430 with GF. Now which am I gonna use? Now onto the strengths of FF9: 1. Traditional character class. Every character has a certain class and can learn certian unique abilities that only they can learn. This aspect of FF games is what made them famous 2. Weapon choice. Every character has over 14 weapons that they will come across during the game, and these weapons are completly unique to them. With 8 characters that is over 100 weapons to choose from 3. Armor choice. As i outlined earlier, their are 4 categories of armor. And the armor makes sense. For example, the knights use armor while the mages use robes and the theif uses light vests. 4. Limited summoning. In this game summoning is called into check. It costs MP, so u cannot summon over and over. 5. Each character gets some of the same abilities (like attack and item) and some of their own
reliable source=religion=unknown

Although what you are saying is... Broken. I will try to decipher what you are trying to say. It looks like you are trying to say religion itself you can rely on, as a reliable source. First we have to analyze what makes a reliable source. Credibility in a source is proven through 2 things: Education of author Experience And then the variables of credibility are the bias of the author (a Democrat praising Hillary) With this said religion itself is not credible due to the fact that the author of many religions, has not actually been proven real. Whereas if they may be real, they may have a lot of experience, but they have just not been proven real. Religion is based of faith and belief, which i categorize opinions with. Therefore religion is not a reliable source.
People are over-reacting to Miley Cyrus's VMA performance.

Viewers have a right to express their disgust but that in no way makes it justified. furthermore I have shown why I don't think it's justified. Weighing up the information, I don't see a logical reason why it can be justified. There's a difference between a logical expression and an instant expression. The outrage over Rihanna is minimal compared to the outrage over Miley yet Rihanna has shown and done far more explicit things onstage than miley has. (. http://www.youtube.com...). Also I never said that Rihanna gets away scot-free, I just said that she is getting a minimal amount of complaints compared to Miley. Anyone can attempt to influence young minds if they want to, be it celebrity or non-celebrity. Of course being on a tv show just makes it easier but again, Miley was only as much of a role model as people made her out to be. Again, this respect that you had for her was most likely from Hannah Montana the tv show. So you had respect for a fictional character rather than the person who played the character. A fictional character who you didn't think was capable of doing such an act, therefore her actions have shattered your respect for her because you respected the tv character. Why would you compare a case of rape to petty, childish, insignificant outrage over a wild 20 year old pop star? Yes, Petty, childish and insignificant; I rest my case. I feel I have done what I can to try and argue that people are indeed over-reacting to Miley's VMA performance. She is a young, typically wild girl who is part of a generation where such explicit nature is around every corner. People should react strongly to more important things anyway such as the Music companies who allow such explicit nature to occur. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
People are over-reacting to Miley Cyrus's VMA performance.

"With great power, comes great responsibility."Miley has been given a certain power over some tweens due to her role as Hannah, and while it IS correct that she has the right to freedom of expression, but it is also her responsibility to keep herself in check.As you said, Miley has a right to the freedom of expression,. but then, don't viewer's too have a right to express their disgust over her performance?As for Rihanna, her songs have continuously sparked outrage and she has been cristicised and condemned for the same. The preception that she gets away scot-free for her explicit action is actually pretty incorrect.Life as a public figure, and one who can influence youn minds, is very different than that as an average person. While any other 20-year-old doing this might not have been such a big deal, Miley doing this does. People aren't condemning her because her actions were unexpected, people are condemning her because her actions have actually shattered the respect many (including me) had once had for her. While things like these keep on happening, there are always some that tend to stand out in the crowd. Cases of rapes aren't a new thing in India, but it was the Nirbhaya case of December 2012 that was highlighted. It was that case which brought the public to the streets and triggered a chain of events which revolutionised the entire nation.Would you call that an over reaction too?