BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

Solarman, your attempt at critiquing the extreme left, no matter how valid it may or may not be, is entirely undermined when you simultaneously make ridiculous statements like "I really beleive [sic] that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this." You just make your own arguments seem ridiculous when you engage in such hyperbole. Exaggerating your criticisms to such extremes makes you seem to observers to be "foaming at the mouth"at least as much as those you critique. If you really want to convince anyone of anything at all, you would be wise to seek the "high ground" and be reasoned, moderate, balanced, and calm in your criticism, rather than responding to hate with more hate. Let's be clear about this. Real mental illnesses are not sociologically unique. They are, at least in principle, historically and culturally universal. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is specifically about a particular 21st-century politician--George W. Bush--and that in itself, regardless of any other issue, makes it inappropriate and useless for inclusion in the DSM, regardless of the other facts of the matter. Suppose there were a lot of people in the 1st century B.C. who'd been driven to apparent "derangement" by their hatred of Julius Caesar, going to ridiculous excesses in criticizing him--would that justify including "Julius Caesar Derangement Syndrome" in the DSM? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not just some trivia book listing every mistaken or exaggerated belief which anyone has ever subscribed to. All of your arguments thus far have been beside-the-point, factually questionable, logically unconnected, rambling, and full of hate ("clinically insane dumbocraps"? are you serious?), hero worship (why should it matter if Bush is a "very genuinely nice person"? most good people would make terrible presidents), and blatant partisanship ("the leftist agruments [sic] are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil"?)--and pretty much everything _except_ even a smidgen of an attempt at the level of discipline and neutrality which even the soft sciences, like psychology, make. Your conclusions simply fail to follow from any of your premises, even ignoring how dubious many of those premises ("Stalinist tactics"? really now?) are. Your digressions, ranting, and overgeneralizations destroy your own argument much more effectively than I ever could. That aside, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well, and a happy New Year! :)
Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

Seasons Greetings, Rob. Of course you wont answer any of the points I bring up or why. Altough I am a bit tongue in cheek about this argument, nonetheless, the point about the mainstream democrats descending into completely irrational foaming at the mouth rhetoric about Bush, the level of hatred for him, and the level of belief about wacky conspiracy theories re : 9/11 wiretapping and surveillance civil liberties and habeus corpus violations and so on clearly show a level of rage and paranoia that meets DSM stadards for several disorders I listed previously the saddest thing about it, which always accompanies mentally ill people, is that the actual work that needs to be done in congress is not getting done, and if a very genuinely nice person like George Walker Bush can be Stalinized (see my other debate about the democrats Stalinist tactics)it is a sad state of affairs that isnt likely to improve soon Now the question is, will the partisan democrats, who can completely over look felonies and gross viiolations of both civil liberites and the law by their own party (the Clintons) , but can try to impeach Bush over non - events like the Plame BS or firing of attorneys or the CIA doing its job Will these clinically insane dumbocraps then just switch gears and use all the same lines and accusations against Romney, Guiliani or Thompson? Becuase FOR SURE George W Bush is NOT on the ballot in 08, and there WILL BE another republican in the office in 09. the DNC will of course try to tie every republican to Bush, as they have poisioned the well agsinst him among the BDS crowd, but that wont work If they do just turn in one day from BDS to RDS or GDS, then I will have my PROOF that these people are actually insane and need treatment. And once again, you will see in my arguments with liberals, they cannot refute any of the facts, or come up with any legit arguments, but merely try to attack ME and MY MOTIVES and generalize, which is what people with no knowledge and experience do (leftists) Of course, Rob, Im sure you will win the popular vote with the teenagers who vote on this silly site. Someday there will be some actual intellectuals to debate with There are PRECIOUS FEW of them on the left,since the leftist agruments are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil. MERRY CHRISTMAS ! solarman
Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

Solarman, I hope you are able to see the irony in criticizing people for being too extremist and absolutist in their distaste for Bush, while at the same time classifying a wide swathe of people who disagree with you as suffering from a mental illness. Responding to black-and-white absolutism with more black-and-white absolutism solves nothing. Hating a politician does not make one psychotic; surely there are some politicians whom you despise as well? Have you never indulged in hyperbole in attacking some liberal you despise? Indeed, you have engaged in such on this very page. So why is it only a "mental illness" when a conservative is the target of such attacks? Psychology is not a partisan game, Solarman. I'm not interested in getting into an in-depth point-by-point discussion of the issues with you here. If you wish to discuss them in detail, feel free to make separate debates for each of them; but it would be superfluous of me to address them here, when all I need to do is point out that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not a mental illness, even if it is a problem. (And if it is, it is a social one, not a psychopathological one.) We both agree that Bush's actions are neither 100% good nor 100% bad; getting into the details can only obscure that point. Suffice to say that you lose any credibility in a nonpartisan arena like psychopathology when you make assertions like "0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill." (I especially like how you qualified the "30% of democrats" with an "about", but not the "0% of republicans", which is apparently an absolute number.) Indeed, I am less worried by extreme opponents of Bush than I am by people who are willing to dismiss over 24 million functional American citizens as "insane". How would you go about combating such insanity? Round people who disagree with you up into camps, lock them away until they see the truth? Pathologizing a political position en masse is an early warning sign for fascism. I am not accusing you of this, but I am giving you this warning so you can take a step back, look at how you're merely responding to extremism with more extremism, and consider a more moderate approach to this issue that concerns you so. Moreover, if it is indeed delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of pure villain, then it is equally delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of hero and savior. Being a partisan reactionary with a weak, biased grasp on political realities doesn't make you crazy. But I'll agree with you that it's sadly prevalent today--albeit in both parties, not just one or the other. The real solution to this serious, across-party-lines (not exclusively liberal) social (not psychological) problem is to seek to calmly and unpolarizingly educate and understand the other side; incessantly stereotyping and attacking people for disagreeing with you will merely worsen the problem.
Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills; likewise, we can agree that not everything Bush does is wrong. We can even speculate that he has good intentions for much of what he does, if we are inclined to do so. Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. It is, in fact, perfectly possible to strongly criticize someone without resorting to hyperbole or caricaturing, even if people don't often bother to be so balanced in their criticism--on either side. "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters. What is perhaps noteworthy about "BDA" is that it risks trivializing the very real, relevant, substantive criticisms of Bush that are out there. It serves as a shortcut term for dismissing arguments without really considering or explicitly addressing them, and serves only to further polarize and antagonize debaters. In other words, its use promotes an anti-discussion environment. More productive would be simply pointing out when people are exaggerating or fabricating mistakes of Bush's, while conceding when their criticisms are valid; it may take more effort than resorting to cheap labels, but you will come across as much more reasonable and convincing for that effort, and may even change someone's mind on a certain point.
Bush invade Iran

Hi, thank you for starting this debate. While Iran has made some pretty "out-there" threats, such as "wiping Israel off the map," toward the US, they are voicing the anti-US sentiments throughout the world. The US has been criticized by not only the middle east, but also people all around the world for bullying smaller countries with our superior military and economic strength. Invading Iran would only further this belief. This would cause problems as by increasing hate for the US in the rest of the world, we could possibly spawn more terrorist actions against the US. Global image is something we want to protect. Seeing as how Bush went from a relatively popular president after 9/11 at 70ish% approval down to less than 30% due mainly to the Iraq war, he should have learnt his lesson. According to a US intellegence service, the US had knowledge that Iran had canceled it's weapons program 4 years ago. Iran, other than by spreading anti-US sentiments, is clearly not an immediate threat. So no, the US should continue diplomatic ways. Please explain your opening point in a little more detail, so I can understand more of your reasoning behind your stance.
The beginning of the universe! for fun!

Hmmm, like I said an accident is an unforeseen result. If God is omniscient then he knew what the explosion would do. And a fundamental challenge to your last assertion, is that maybe the beings weren't trying to destroy at all. Maybe the explosion was just another way to create at a much more rapid pace. This concludes the debate wonderful questions, very insightful and incredibly intriguing, had to think for this one. Til next time -justiceandtruth
The beginning of the universe! for fun!

Great questions, to answer the first two questions, the answer is both . They are both God and since we are using religion I shall use John1:1-3 to assert the claim that both can be 1 of the same thing at the same time."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." So much like scriptures state God would not create without the word and the word cannot create with out God. In a similar manner the explosion could not exist without an exploder, and the exploder cannot be with out an explosion, nature of being. To answer your next question could God have intended to make life or was it an accident. God intended to create life and so did the explosion which was God. John 1:4-5 which immediately follows the earlier verse reads,"In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." It was their nature to create look at the vastness of space and the many galaxies and solar systems. Many of which have not been discovered and many more are in the embryonic stages of life. Oh how our universe is so limitless! This fact corroborates the nature of God I will clump your last two questions together. Intent has to be a facet of God. Accident can be defined as,"an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance" now this cannot be true of God because God says he is the beginning and end. Since the differences between beginning and end are as far apart as the east is from the west we have to assume that since God is apart of both events he must fill in all time in between. This means God is everlasting. To be everlasting you have to be infallible. If you make an accident you are fallible and ultimately human. If you are human you cannot be God. Hope this answers some questions, and please ask some more.
The beginning of the universe! for fun!

This seems like a fun topic. I assume that since I am the pro I am saying that this universe is the remnant of something else that was before this is entirely possible and I will use science and theology/philosophy to make my argument. 1st-The law of Conservation of mass .The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter can be changed from one form into another, mixtures can be separated or made, and pure substances can be decomposed, but the total amount of mass remains constant. Definition provide-http://chem.wisc.edu... If the universe came from nothing our very universe would defy the very laws which it abides by. It leads us to an unfathomable conclusion that the pregnancy of nothing can produce something. This notion is non sense using this example. Objectors to the view that nothing can come from nothing say so under the notion that we have never experienced nothingness so we can never truly have perspective of whether nothing comes from nothing. Let us define nothingness-"no thing; not anything; naught" provided by dictionary reference. Vacuums in space fit this definition because their is no matter. IN the billions of years of the universe's existence nothing has ever just popped out of no where and that is well documented. Our universe follows the same exact ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing nothing comes. 2. Using this established logic most christian religious claims are corroborated. Revelation22:13 State's that "I am the Alpha and Omega" I representing God. These principles under the premise that the Universe existed from a dominant life form before us support religion in the fact the god is infinite, everlasting, and non spatio tempral. Thank you for posting this and I am ready for questions
CSU schools are better than UC schools

Yes you are right about the CSU's being better for smaller classes but that does not mean you can longer work for the degree you want in a UC. In an article posted by the University of California on August 15th, 2014 they stated that the UC produce 40 percent of the undergraduate degrees in California along with 70 percent of the doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math. With these degrees not only will you be able to go for the job you want, but get a higher and better pay than a lower degree. This also means that more than half of doctorate degree owners graduated froma UC rather than a CSU'S.
CSU schools are better than UC schools

That's absolutely right becouse yes UC school are more likely for studies and researches, however, CSU based on a website named "differencebetween" that published an article in there called "Difference Between UC and CSU" the writer mentions there important things about CSU: 1- "CSU offers education appropriate for professional positions that are not research oriented." 2- "CSU leans toward developing smaller class sizes." 3- "CSU classes are more likely to be taught by a single, consistent professor." So, don't you wanna work after getting your degree? for that, CSU will lead you for being able to work with companies, banks, or even hospitals, not like US's! Moreover, I have a friend from here and she graduated from UCLA; she lives in Corona, California and she is a pharmacist. She was struggling in finding a job after she graduated in 2015--and it took her more than a year to find a job. And by the way, she told me that "it is not really what I was dreaming to find after spending lots of money in UCLA," but she needs to work.
CSU schools are better than UC schools

You are right by what you have been said because according to a "Difference Between" website by an article names "Difference Between UC and CSU" that published in 2010. However, they also mentions that " CSU can offer very good postgraduate options, there are also more options for freshmen coming directly from high school." From my experience, and as I work at Norco College in the EOPS program, there are different programs at CSU like the program that I worked on and it called also "EOP" which I got accepted to in Cal Poly Pomona. This program can help students who came from high school and from college, too. As it published in Cal Poly Pomona's website in EOP section by EOP's services: " They offer academic advisor, tutorial services, and grant."
CSU schools are better than UC schools

So, as I am a transfer student, I chose this topic from my experience of applying to to both, UC'S AND CSU. I am definitely going to CSU, because for me it is not as expensive as UC'S! CSU, is way better and easier than UC'S school, because when I did apply, the application was so simple and they didn't look for personal statement like what CS asked on their application. Additionally, the fees are cheaper from UC'S fees, which was $55 for CSU that is published in CSU MENTOR, in "CSU APPLICATIONS AND WEBSITE HELP." However, for UC $70--and that's according to University of California admission that is on the UC'S website.
weird stuff

"imagination is false" what do you mean by that? That the things we imagine are false, or is the imagination itself is false? If imagination is false, I disagree. Imagination is the imagination of the imagination of the randomness of the forest. Potatoes have skin, so therefore, I am a potato. Rats have tails and my cat has a tail, therefore my cat is a rat. Physical experience is real, you don't have to point it out. It's understandable. I hate to say this, but... I'm a wizard.
weird stuff

We have spent hours finding the one, yet you thought you have found them, but they see you as someone not-so-important. The truth really hurts, though finding a natural red rock is really impossible. Thinking the way you knew you were might not also be possible, but we view it the same as others do. We might not know that the red you see is not the red they see, Taylor Swift did not see red as a color at all, so it's reasonable. However, thinking that we have a clue, we actually don't. It's called an inception.
weird stuff

You should not do something unless you are willing to do it. Why am I in this debate, anyway? Is this even a debate? What is this about? First of all, I accepted because I'm interested. But what if I wasn't? Where would all this go? Sometimes I tell people to slap me. They would. But if my gorgeous female friend asks them, the wouldn't. How is this possible? 1. I am not attractive, 2. I am ugly. My point is that, we need to be beautiful to not get slapped. Wait, what? Screw it I'm done.
In a battle between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan would win.

"My opponent's first set of rules do not coincide with his second. I conceded to most of the rules in his first post so therefore I assumed they still applied." ---They do still apply. "Keith Olbermann cannot both be tied at the limbs and have no limbs. That would be impossible." ---True. Keith can have his limbs I guess. "In addition, the battle is between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan not between other miscellaneous groups of people. Hence the reason Buchanan had the heart attack on sight of Olbermann not by some sight of a random group of people." ---You never said that there could not be a battle beforehand. And you did not say the battle had to be fair. Unfortunately, Keith ran into some bad fellas and had to pay the price. "In addition, if Keith Olbermann had to run there, so did Buchanan since my opponent did not specify otherwise. A 70 year old man would not make it 26 7/32 miles at a gentle jog let alone a run. Therefore one could expect that Pat Buchanan would have died mid journey. Therefore Keith Olbermann getting his limbs ripped off would have been obsolete nonetheless." ---No. I said: "Pat Buchanan walked in the room fully intact with no injuries (internal of external) whatsoever. He walked in the room strikingly similar to the condition in the YouTube video." "Pat Buchanan has a history of being owned - see videos. That starry eyed look that Buchanan has in most of them is the look that he most surely had when my next set of rules was enacted." ---Both men in those videos were great debaters. However, debating does not have much to do with a death match. "My opponent ignored my age argument which I am now sure he will bring up in his final argument." ---Yeah, he is older, but age doesn't really play a factor after you get shot, stabbed, and your vital organs are ripped out. In response to all 5 of my opponent's points: ---I demonstrated that is fully possible for Keith to suffer the injuries he suffered from the 69 thugs. There is no rule that battles could not have taken place beforehand. "He was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs. He was then thrown in the room." In conclusion: ---This battle is a death match. A death match in which Keith Olbermann "...was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs." Pat Buchanan only suffered a heart attack. Keith's injuried would obviously kill him in much shorter time than in Pat's injuries. Since Pat lives longer, he wins the battle/death match. Voters-- Thank you for reading. Please vote fairly. Do not vote bomb and do not vote seven points either way for no reason. Please post RFDs. untitled_entity-- Thank you for the opportunity to debate. It was fun and interesting.