BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

Political motions are always divisive, but this one lies right at the top of the scale. It's two years after the recession and now, in the American election, a lot of what the international media is showing is a great argument among the presidential hopefuls as to how America can be made to be as prosperous as possible. The question is - is that even desirable? Or should the governments of America and other countries aim primarily for a more equal distribution of wealth, given how some Americans are in greater poverty than ever before, while others seem only to get wealthier and wealthier?DefinitionsSince the motion is incredibly vague, let me define my idea of "economic equality". Economics is all about standard of living. Having an equal standard of living means that we get fair compensation for our work, and that we get work to do. This involves three processes. First, work must be fair, so employers can't discriminate or treat their employees badly. Second, work must provide adequate compensation to all employees to allow them to have a standard of living, but not so much that a few elites can control access to certain commodities. This is where stuff like minimum wage laws and progressive taxation comes into play, which in many ways are the most important things governments can do. Third, it means governments must do all they can to fight unemployment (I suspect we'll find some common ground here) insofar as people are able to work. In a nutshell, economic equality means we all have equal access to a standard of living, regardless of things like our backgrounds or what suburb we live in. I intend to justify all of this when the debate starts - I merely put it here so that there is no confusion over what I am actually arguing for in this debate.My opponent is free to define how exactly he measures prosperity. Tautological definitions should be ignored.The question in this debate is not whether a prosperous society or an equal society is to be preferred. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. The question is which option governments should generally encourage (notwithstanding exceptional circumstances), in cases where a policy decision can only work in favor of one or the other. As per usual in debating, all other words have their standard dictionary definitions.StructurePlease only accept this debate if you're going to take it seriously.The burden of proof is mine. This is an acceptance/definitions/setup round. Round four is a summary round, and should be used primarily to summarise the debate, as opposed to doing things like bring up new arguments. The debate is generally structured exactly like any other DDO debate.Good luck!
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

My opponent claims that I have offered an argument from incredulity but this is most emphatically not the case. I think it would be instructive to go back to our example of the flagellum. In a highly simplified form, say it has only the 5 parts listed- A,B,C,D,E. Now, say we disable or remove each part in turn and investigate to see whether or not the flagellum functions in some way. If we find that, in fact, a flagellum missing any one of those parts, but possessing the other four, is useless, then we will have found an example of irreducible complexity. This is not a matter of incredulity it is a matter of testable hypotheses. The fact that ID theorists don't bother to do such experiments before making their claims doesn't change the fact that *if* they did so, and they found that every possible configuration that would have led up to the final one is unselectable, that they would have an example of irreducible complexity. Remember, I don't think a single factual claim in regards to irreducible complexity holds water- I don't think such a case has ever been found. " Behe referred to "necessary-but-unselected mutations" -- but what is this really, in evolutionary terms, but a huge self-contradiction?" Thats the point. I am arguing here; that, were such a thing found, it could not have evolved naturally and must be evidence of design. "Should I also have to mention that, just as before, the argument still ignores the fact that evolutionary functions can and do change?" I did no such thing. In R3 I specifically mentioned that while an earlier structure needs to have *some* function, it need not the be the same one as the final structure. My opponent still completely misses the point of my argument; namely that irreducible complexity, when found, is evidence of design. He keeps presenting arguments intended to show that irreducible complexity has not been found in nature and on this point I agree with him. However, it doesn't follow that such could not be found through scientific investigation or that once found it would not indicate some form of design. That is what the resolution states, and that is what I negate.
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

I am in complete agreement with you as to how evolution works. pro: "This does not change the fact that if there were no part that could be removed while maintaining *some* function, that the structure would be irreducibly complex." This sounds somewhat like an argument from incredulity, does it not? That's because it is. My opponent has chosen to quote Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." But I have stated quite clearly in the very first round: "If ID wishes to call itself a scientific theory, it must provide testable explanations, not untested hypotheses. *IC does not imply design, it is at best simply a criticism of evolution.*" As for Behe's second "evolutionary" definition, it actually works against him. Behe referred to "necessary-but-unselected mutations" -- but what is this really, in evolutionary terms, but a huge self-contradiction? Should I also have to mention that, just as before, the argument still ignores the fact that evolutionary functions can and do change? And so, as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, both the proposed definitions for irreducible complexity are, in their truest essence, irreducibly invalid.
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

There is a simple error that Behe makes in defining irreducible complexity the way my opponent has described. He assumes that one can choose *any* part to disable, and if the structure in question ceases to function, then it is irreducibly complex. However, since evolution is at base a linear process, in order to move from less to more complexity, only one part at a time need change. So while it is true that removing a part at random may well destroy the functioning of a flagellum, it is possible that a flagellum minus a single part can still function. Example: Assume a flagellum requires parts A,B,C,D, and E to function properly, and further that if you knock out A,B,C or E that the proto-flagellum has no function. However, a structure composed of A,B,C,E and missing D does serve a function, one that is beneficial to the organism (though it need not be the same function that the flagellum serves.) It may appear that such a structure is irreducibly complex, until you hit upon the correct part to disable while still maintaining some function. This does not change the fact that if there were no part that could be removed while maintaining *some* function, that the structure would be irreducibly complex. Behe also claims that "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/).[1] This is the definition to which I adhere. While my opponent would likely agree that there is no evidence of this in the fossil record or in any living creatures, the fact of the matter is that if such a structure were discovered, either in an organism or in something inorganic, it would have to be considered the product of design. As Charles Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species Thus while I agree that irreducible complexity is often claimed spuriously, it doesn't follow from that that actual irreducible complexity, when observed, is not evidence of design. 1. http://www.ideacenter.org...
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

CON: "You have done no such thing. Assuming a bacterial flagellum could have evolved in stages, it would not be irreducibly complex at all." Actually, by the definition of irreducible complexity proposed by the ID camp, it would be. Definition of IC *according to its originator*: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Simon & Schuster, 1996, 39. I am not debating to win. I am trying to prove a point. So if the definition for IC is as you say (as opposed to what Behe said), then admitted I really have no issue with your position, and I shall whole-heartedly agree with you. This "IC" would indeed be some sort of evidence for design -- of course, some further questions will surely be raised, such as: how then should ID proponents go about in denoting something as "IC" or not "IC", when not a single criterion exists? Things may appear "IC" when actually, they're not. The current definition of IC actually has specific criteria to be met. If some parts are removed from a system and the system ceases to operate, then we have a candidate IC system. I am not here to muddle up definitions. The definition of IC has clearly been stated by ID proponents, and I fear it is not one to which you are adhering. Notes ------------- ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Discovery Institute).
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

"But irreducibly complex systems can be a result of undirected processes. A bacterial flagellum, for instance, may be considered irreducibly complex (removing any one of the parts would likely cause the system to cease functioning). However, this by no means proves design. As we know, evolutionary refinements could easily explain the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum. The system when broken down may not be functional as a whole, but still functional independently. The fatal flaw committed by the ID proponents is to assume exactly that which you had assumed -- that irreducible complexity can only be explained by design. I hope I have shown you here that IC simply does not indicate design." You have done no such thing. Assuming a bacterial flagellum could have evolved in stages, it would not be irreducibly complex at all. Again, I think there is a confusion here between what appears to be irreducibly complex, such as various biological systems proposed by intelligent design advocates and what actually *is* irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved at all. I admit it is quite possible, even likely, that every instance of irreducible complexity proposed by ID theorists is wrong; that not a single one is evidence of irreducible complexity at all. However, it does not follow from that that nothing on earth is irreducibly complex, or that something that is could have evolved. The very definition of "irreducible complexity" is something that could not have developed by stages. If you provide evidence for the stages through which something evolved, you are explicitly denying that it is irreducibly complex. You have yet to show how something that actually *is* irreducibly complex, rather than simply appearing to be so, fails as evidence for design.
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

Thank you for taking the debate. My opponent has raised a good point that I have indeed used a 'reducibly' complex example. I do not deny that I have done so. However, something as complex as a beach would have once be considered by ID proponents as 'irreducibly' complex. It was my earlier intention to state that IC is an argument from incredulity, and therefore "does not hold water". I shall here address the logic of this argument. My opponent has said that "if something actually couldn't have been functional in a partially formed stage, and yet it is functional now, *it had to have been designed*." [emphasis mine]. This is untrue. First, it is important for the both of us to have the same definition of 'irreducible complexity'. Judging by your quote above (especially when you mentioned a 'partially formed' stage), I assume that you define 'irreducible complexity' as something along the lines of "the characteristic of a system of well-matched, mutually interacting parts performing a specific function, in which the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." It is my understanding that this is the standard ID definition for IC, as given by Behe's mousetrap analogy. Please let me know if this is not your definition of IC as I do not intend to attack a strawman. But irreducibly complex systems can be a result of undirected processes. A bacterial flagellum, for instance, may be considered irreducibly complex (removing any one of the parts would likely cause the system to cease functioning). However, this by no means proves design. As we know, evolutionary refinements could easily explain the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum. The system when broken down may not be functional as a whole, but still functional independently. The fatal flaw committed by the ID proponents is to assume exactly that which you had assumed -- that irreducible complexity can only be explained by design. I hope I have shown you here that IC simply does not indicate design. ----------------- Notes: IC: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." 1 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Simon & Schuster, 1996, 39.
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

While my opponent has offered an excellent argument as to why apparent irreducible complexity is not evidence of design, this does nothing towards proving the contention, since he also shows that the arrangement of pebbles on beaches are not, in fact, irreducibly complex. I would agree with him that most ID arguments assume irreducible complexity where none is in fact found; however that doesn't mean that *if* irreducible complexity is found that it doesn't indicate design. There is a difference between that which actually *is* irreducibly complex (say, a laptop computer) and what simply appears to be, but isn't (like your beach or the human eye). The fact is, timcooley has offered evidence of something that is not irreducibly complex (as he has, in fact, reduced it before our very eyes!) and from that concluded that irreducible complexity doesn't indicate design. However, if something actually *couldn't* have been functional in a partially formed stage, and yet it is functional now, it had to have been designed. Extremely complex things *don't* simply pop into existence. While there is often trouble distinguishing between things that actually are irreducibly complex and things that only appear to be so, that doesn't change the logic of the argument.
Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

One of the major arguments from the Intelligent Design camp is that irreducible complexity is evidence of design. Here I should like to focus on this one major argument which the ID camp seemingly bases itself -- the idea that "irreducible complexity is evidence of design", which I believe to be a false assumption. You would consider the way pebbles are arranged on a beach designed, if of course you had completely no understanding, at that given time, of how, naturally, the beach could have been formed. That is because it is completely statistically impossible for each bit of sand to come together in such a way to form a coastal stretch in that formation. But the fact that sand is arranged in this surprisingly miraculous manner does not immediately point toward design, even if we are not armed with the knowledge on how to reduce it yet. If this very same concept of ID were to be used in science centuries ago, we would never find out how nature works, at all. Anytime we see something seemingly irreducibly complex, we would hasten to the conclusion that "The designer did it". Yes, it's the classic "God of the Gaps" argument -- now changed to "the Intelligent Designer of the Gaps". If ID wishes to call itself a scientific theory, it must provide testable explanations, not untested hypotheses. IC does not imply design, it is at best simply a criticism of evolution. Today it can be shown that beaches are formed by gradual, natural processes. The aforesaid argument for ID therefore fails. Irreducible complexity is not evidence for intelligent design -- the argument simply does not hold water.
Tobey Maguire is a better Spider-Man than Andrew Garfield

While I do agree Toby Maguire is a good spiderman he is no where near as good as Andrew Garfield. He just doesn't fit the roll, while he may have the looks. Only Garfield seemed really intelligent in the movies. We can also argue that Andrew's version is much more like the comics than Toby's in many ways. 1. Andrew's version did create his web shooter, something Toby's didn't and instead went for the odd choice of the organic web. Drifting away from the comic source. 2. Andrew's version actually seems smart: Going back to the web shooter argument we see him create a rather sophisticated piece of equipment, and he proves quite resourceful during the second movie when he looks for clues about his parents whereabouts. 3.The way they act: Staying true to spiderman lore Andrew does crack quiet a lot of jokes during the movies. Something that Toby rarely does, instead going for a more melodramatic version weeping about many things. And lets not forget this happened
Android vs iOS

> How does this improve the quality of their operating system? Well, obviously it doesn't since I'm about 85% joking around. Ultimately it boils down to what the user is in the mood for. If you like tinkering and don't mind doing some troubleshooting, then you might be happier with an Android device. If you want an ecosystem that's a bit more tightly controlled, but which will potentially give you less of a headache, then go with IOS. If you live near an Apple store, you can count on them to really be a good source of technical support (if you need that sort of thing), and on the upside you can buy more Apple products while you're in there. > This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. Why do you have a deep seated hatred for custom engravings? Were you abused by a custom engraving as a young child? Do not hold this bad experience against custom engravings everywhere, most of them are very nice! Also you should consider an apple green case to really show off your individuality! > Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs. Bananas and dogs are easy to compare because they are different things. DEBATE SCHOOL. CLASS DISMISSED!
Android vs iOS

Note: Con has his arguments in the comments section. Note 2: Paragraphs marked with '>' are from Con. >Apple encourages everyone to be think differently. It is in their name. By thinking differently along with everyone else, you can finally realize that you are a unique individual in a sea of other equally unique individuals. It is a cognitive dissonance that tickles the imagination with its sublime irony and far reaching commentary on the nature of mankind's desire to differentiate itself while remaining part of a larger group. How does this improve the quality of their operating system? >This is simply untrue. When you buy your ipod, you are encourage to add custom engraving for a very very reasonable fee. You would be a FOOL to not take them up on this offer. Your ipod can come in any color imaginable! Blue! Green! Or a blue-green mixture! The possibilities are endless! This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. >Which is better. The nexus or the apple iTV. The answer lies before us. Which one did Steve Jobs prefer? Would Steve Jobs have preferred an inferior product? No. He would not. Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs.
Android vs iOS

You think iOS is better than Android, but I BEG TO DIFFER! Android has greater customisability, and modification is encouraged in Android-land! Android is supported on a wide variety of devices. iOS uses a Borg-like ecosystem, where modding gets a big "no-no" from Apple. As the Android slogan is, "Be together, not the same." (Anyway, if you more of a closed ecosystem, Android has the device for you! It is called the Nexus! Sources: Android.com
Gay Marriage be legal in the U.S. with no government restriction.

My apologies for not going into detail in my argument, that was my fault. Otherwise, you had stated that since there are restrictions on Gay marriage, and if it was unhindered fully, other groups, such as polygamists, will want the same rights. Personally I believe that polygamy should also be legal, but that is another debate fully, except for one thing, and it is that if one groups gains rights, others will also want the same rights. You had mentioned this as sort of a snowball effect, where it starts with one thing small and "goes downhill" and becomes bigger, which is not the case. It is actually more like a domino effect, where when one thing happens, many more happen (The dominoes falling on one another) with the same cause and effect. You also make polygamy sound like a bad thing, which I don't understand how it is a negative thing. It's not like a 5-year-old stealing a pencil and the next day burning down a building, it's not a downhill process. Either way, I must disagree and request you give me more details or a different argument. Thank you for your reply.
Gay Marriage be legal in the U.S. with no government restriction.

Besides the fact that I personally believe it's wrong I'll put my personal beliefs aside and treat homosexual marriage as a normal marriage. First of all it would have been nice if you had explained your meaning of restrictions. I assume you mean legal in certain states opposed to marriage license and the waiting period. If that is the argument I'll start by saying that all couples who want to get married have to go through these requirements. Now I'll get into the one I assume you mean. First of all yes I do believe there should be government restriction on homosexual marriage. My main reason for this is the fact that if there were no restrictions on homosexual marriage then other groups would demand to get married, i.e. Polygamists and other like minded individuals. The government has restrictions on a lot of things simply to keep worse things from becoming major problems.