BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Doctors Should Learn About Sleep Disorders

R1: Sleep is Overlooked "We analyzed our records, and only 2% of our patients were referred by GP's." [1] We both agree time spent on sleep disorders is nearly nonexistent. The GP's are the first to see patients, but with the vast deficiency in knowledge based on sleep disorders, the vast majority of health professionals are not able to help their patients. Frequently and consequently, the patient is misdiagnosed with another disorder, and the primary problem — a sleep disorder, is left to get worse over time. [1]Bluesteel says that once people are referred to a sleep center, 100% were cured. This is false, but it is missing the main point.Overall, over 40 million Americans suffer from chronic sleep disorders. [3] Sleep disorders cause more than $16 billion in medical costs a year.In America only about 2 hrs. are devoted to sleep disorders, in a 4 year course! [4]And, the professor you cite (Dr. Dement) is somebody I highly respect, enough to use his book for my evidence.The description of this problem is not made up. It is serious. Dr. Dement, the Professor, was the head of a Commission on Sleep Disorders in the 90's. They scanned millions of patient records to see how often patients were diagnosed with sleep disorders. "The sets of data convinced me that, for all intents and purposes, somewhere between 95 and 99 percent of sleep disorder sufferers remain undiagnosed and untreated or misdiagnosed and mistreated. That is millions and millions of people." [4] This evidence alone should serve as a crushing blow. Millions are allowed to suffer because GP's are unaware for the vast part about sleep disorders.R2: Sleep is Important1) "Sleep is the most important predictor of how long you will live, perhaps more important than your exercise [or nutrition] levels." [2]The American Cancer Society concluded "Sleep time had the best correlation with mortality." [2]And, as I said earlier, sleep problems are highly prevalent, and since sleep is THE MOST important in factor for good health, it is absolutely justifiable that doctors have a better understanding of this field.Further evidence shows that GP's need training in this field. Dr. Dement wrote, "After scanning more than 10 million patient records, we found a grand total of 73 diagnostic codes for OSA, 7 for narcolepsy. No specific sleep disorder diagnosis was found. It might as well have been a big fat zero." [1] GP's are certified, and learn new info. frequently. Put sleep disorders in the curricula, and demand for sleep specialists will increase.— Dr. Dement is the world's leading expert in sleep medicine and sleep science—————————Concluding, GP's should learn about sleep disorders, at a basic level of understanding. Over 40 million Americans suffer from chronic sleep disorders. GP's rarely diagnose sleep disorders. With the training, they could do so much better.[1] Dement, Dr. . The Promise of Sleep. New York City: 1999. 353-6.[2] Ibid, 262-3.[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...
Doctors Should Learn About Sleep Disorders

==Character Limit== I don't know about 2,000. That's short. And because you only gave me 24 hours to respond, I have only 50 min right now and thus don't have much time to research many of your claims. R1: Sleep is Overlooked Contra's first source, the one which says that sleep is poorly covered in medical education, also says, "sleep disorders are among the most common complaints seen by general practitioners." If someone complains to a GP about a sleep disorder, he or she would be referred to a specialist (a sleep clinic). The article says that many GP's failed to correctly recognize narcolepsy, for example, but the condition WAS later correctly diagnosed by a sleep clinic in 100% of the cases. Doctors, under the referral system, do a good job of knowing what they DON'T know and referring patients to specialists. The 30% stat includes missing sleep (because you work the night shift) and jet lag as "sleep disorders." The article never proves that people with sleep disorders are "usually not treated." My opponent still needs a stat to prove this. The study about medical schools in England is flawed because England lags behind everyone else in sleep medicine, according to the Guardian. [1] The director of the Imperial College Healthcare Sleep Centre in England says that England lacks a general training and certification program, unlike the US which has one administered by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Anyone who attends Harvard or Stanford would do a rotation at the sleep clinics at those medical schools. At Stanford, here is a professor that teaches sleep sciences at the med school. [2] R2: Sleep is important I agree. Since I don't have access to this book though, you need to quote in full the sentences you are citing so I can check that they really say what you're saying. How many children are misdiagnosed, for example? And how many by GP's, as opposed to psychiatrists? Unanswered questions: 1) Why is sleep more important than anything else? One in ten Americans suffer from clinic depression. Why shouldn't GP's get more psychiatric training instead? Isn't this a slippery slope to forcing GP's to be experts in everything, which is the opposite of what a GENERAL practitioner is supposed to be? 2) Who pays for the training? How do we do it? If a medical school has no sleep clinic and no professors that study sleep, who teaches the course? 3) How do we require current GP's to get trained? 4) Most people forget what they learn in school, honestly. What guarantee is there that if they spent hours on sleep disorders in medical school they'd remember this training if they didn't specialize in sleep medicine? 5) Why not educate the general public instead? If we can recognize our own sleep disorders, we can immediately ask for a referral to a sleep clinic or if we have a PPO, just go ourselves. Why do we bother training experts in sleep medicine? Use them, not GP's. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...
Doctors Should Learn About Sleep Disorders

Thanks for accepting Bluesteel, you're a formidable opponent. I ask in R3 would you accept a cap of 2,000 characters?Sleep rejuvenates the body and mind.Arguments C1: Sleep is Overlooked Medical schools currently spend barely any time educating future doctors about sleep. The National Institutes of Health regards the topic of sleep disorders as "poorly covered in medical education." [1] They also correctly say that "a major consequence is that the manifestations of the many sleep disorders now identified are likely to be misinterpreted as other clinical conditions of a physical or psychological nature." Furthermore, empirical evidence from a study in the UK proved that the average time devoted to sleep disorders in medical school was a whopping — 5 minutes. [3] There is zero reason to believe that things have improved since then. Horribly enough, this prevalance is not corrected in many high specialties with high rates of sleep disorders, including paediatrics and psychiatry. Not surprisingly, since medical professionals are for the most part deficient in knowledge about sleep disorders, they are usually not likely to inquire symptoms as a result of a sleep disorder, [4] and therefore, treatment is usually for the symptoms, not the sleep disorder itself. Furthermore, 30% of Americans at any given time are being affected by a sleep disorder, and usually not treated. [2] C2: Sleep is Uniquely Important to Health There is no other biological state like sleep, which creates a perceptual wall between conscious mind and the outside world, and can be immediately reversed.The puzzle for good physical health is healthy sleep, diet, and exercise. We are constantly reminded about the latter two, but are not usually informed of sleep. The American Cancer Society did a massive study in the 1950s as well that found that healthy sleep is important in determining longevity, more influential than diet, exercise, or heredity. [5]Many patients are left untreated because of the deficiency of knowledge. [6] Consequently, many children are misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder instead of a sleep disorder, and many sleep apnea patients are treated for depression instead of sleep apnea! [6]Conclusion:In our current society, PCPs are not trained in sleep disorders to a degree that is necessary. Since sleep is extremely critical to health, it must be incorporated into the medical field, so the 30% or so of Americans have a chance at a better life, since the vast majority are currently undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] Stores G, Crawford C. Medical student education in sleep and its disorders. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998;32;149–153.[4] Namen A M, Landry S H, Case D. et al Sleep histories are seldom documented on a general medical service. South Med J 2001. 94874–879.879.[5] Dement, Dr. . The Promise of Sleep. New York City: 1999. 262-263.[6] Dement, Dr. . The Promise of Sleep. New York City: 1999. 354.
Doctors Should Learn About Sleep Disorders

Thanks for the debate Contra. == Definitions == From the comments section, it is clear that by "doctors" Contra meant GP's (general practitioners). In medical school, there are NO specialties. Doctors are required to study a variety of disorders. After graduating, doctors start a residency program during which they specialize in a certain field of medicine. Certain medical schools, like Stanford and Harvard, have special sleep clinics where doctors specialize in sleep disorders. In this debate, I will generally defend the current specialization system among doctors, whereby GP's don't learn a great deal about various specialties - instead they refer you to a specialist. If you come into your GP's office complaining about skin problems, he or she will refer you to a dermatologist. If you come in complaining about bowel problems, he or she will refer you to a gastroenterologist. If you come in complaining about sleep problems, he or she will provide you a referral to go to a sleep clinic and have your sleep patterns monitored. == Burden of Proof == Pro and instigator has the burden of proof. I'd like to hear Contra's justification for why GP's should have specialized knowledge in the field of sleep disorders. And why JUST sleep disorders? Why shouldn't GP's train in psychiatric disorders? Or bowel disorders? Why are sleep disorders so uniquely important? Who will pay for the additional training? Will insurance still cover seeing specialists if GP's are trained in diagnosing sleep disorders? What sleep clinic will the GP use? Will he just buy an EEG and monitor you in your own bed? Pro needs to answer all these questions. In addition, it is important to remember that if you have a PPO for your health insurance, you don't even need to see a GP. You can instead immediately go see a specialist. So if you know you have trouble sleeping or you put your symptoms into WebMD and think you have a sleep disorder, you could just go immediately to a sleep clinic. There's no reason to see a GP. I have no problem with the 5,000 character limit, but only because the character limit for this debate is 3,000. Just thought the readers should know that. I turn the floor over to Contra.
The existence of God

I set up the rules and made it clear that the burden of proof was on pro. My opponent didn't have to accept the debate, but now that he did, he can't go and change the rules. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster, Bigfoot, tinker bell, or aliens don't exist. That doesn't mean that they do exist. So, my opponent will either have to prove there is a God or forfeit. I would suggest starting out by defining what "god" is, before trying to prove it exists. Good luck.
The existence of God

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof. We both share the burden of prove. Because you state "the existence of God" and you oppose it (con) now you have to provide evidence that there isn't a "God." I am in no way trying to shift the burden of proof. but rather a share of the burden of proof. Yes somenoe person has to prove the negative. Because if one person is proving the postive than theres an opponent who has to prove the negative. If both of us was going to prove the positive than this wouldn't be a "pro and con" on this debate. rather "Con and Con" or "Pro and Pro"
Barack Obama would be a Better President than John McCain.

Okay, basically the reason why Obama is better at uniting (according to my opponent) is because McCain was involved in the Keating Five business. If he was involved, it was minimal involvement. The Senate Ethics Committee found that he, and John Glenn had very little involvement with the Keating scandal. My opponent also says that Obama makes uniting political acts. Apparently he isn't aware that most of McCain's major legislation was bipartisan. We've got McCain-Feingold, McCain and Kerry investigating in Vietnam looking for MIA soldiers, Lieberman and McCain creating the 9/11 commission, McCain and Hollings creating the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, and with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. Also my opponent says that McCain sells out to interest groups. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms were one of the worst things to happen to interest groups, I really don't see how that's selling out. My opponent then says that McCain's political know-how will be bad for the country, as it would divide the country. To the contrary, it would help him and Congress work together and get things done. Obama's inexperience will make him easy to be bullied by Congress. That is certainly not a blessing. Also, my opponent claims connections aren't important, but unfortunately, in Washington they are. Obama can go up to his fellow Senators and say "Change, Hope, Dreams, we need new healthcare. " all he wants, but all that's going to happen is that they're going to laugh at him. McCain will go up and say "If you support my immigration proposal I'll help your drug legislation get through. " This will allow him to garner support, and get legislation passed. On the stress issue I'll agree that neither candidate is very qualified, but McCain has handled his tress longer, and can do it better, especially because he is not raising young children. Although Obama may be more qualified than Patrick, he has to run the country rather than the state of Massachusetts. And, contrasting my opponent's claim, there was more than just the casino issue. And, also contrasting my opponent, Patrick and Obama are pretty similar. They both have the opposition to the business as usual mentality, and you can see what that did to Patrick.
Barack Obama would be a Better President than John McCain.

Hello again, my opponent asked for this debate while I had an identical debate running. Seeing as how my other opponent is taking some time to respond, I figured I would oblige LR4N6FTW3EVA. Here is the same first argument, hopefully both debates won't run parallel, but maybe they will. Since they might, it'd be better to run them simultaneously so this opponent can't use the first one to draw from. Good luck! This 2008 election marks the end of the George Bush era - one marked by bitter partisan divides overseeing our economy crumble, the war in Iraq fester, the war on Terror stall, and America's standing in the world diminish to other world powers. This divide amongst liberals and conservatives, free market or government-intervention types, pro-war or anti-war folks is the biggest problem facing our country today above all these issues, because while we stand divided - at home, in the house and in the senate, none of our problems can get solved the right way. From the Audacity of Hope, Obama writes: "What's troubling is the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem". Obama is the best person we have to unite this country to solve our problems. From his work in the Illinois state legislature to the U.S Senate, he brings to America a new type of governing, one that is our only hope to overcoming these great struggles. His approach emphasizes the common values that everybody holds dear to and he tackles the reality of the issue at hand in a compromise that suits all sides equally. The stances of the other candidates may be appealing to some, but they are not enough to lead this country. What's best for this country is achieved only by listening to all sides, and Obama has already proven his ability to do so in his "A More Perfect Union" speech which can be seen here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com...... He possesses an intelligent and wise mind capable of bridging the gaps of race, wealth, and beliefs to unite us in our common purpose for a better country. Only through unity can the United States of America survive, and only Obama can bring us this unity. That is why he would be a better president than McCain or Clinton.
The Existence of Space

First, I would like to apologize to my adversary for not providing a definition of space. You gave two very decent explanations for the word; however I feel that both are somewhat insufficient for this discussion. When I say space, I refer to everything that is physically. I think the definition from Dictionary.com [1] states it best: “the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur. In this is distance, time, and anything else which has physical properties.Rebuttal of Pro’s Refutations of My Original StatementPremise 1: “Everything that is is in something.”You claim that space exists in the universe. If you were acting upon your previous meaning of space, you would be correct. Space in that sense exists in the “physical world”. However, with the definition with which I am going, it is incorrect. My point is that the universe in itself is in nothing, or rather the absence of something, for nothing implies that there is something. Premise 2: “Space is in nothing”. You misquoted me in saying that I stated “space is nothing.” In this syllogism, I do not state that until the conclusion. Because of this error, the meaning for you was completely different. To explain my second premise, one must previously accept my first. Once this has been done, one must show that space is in something, or else render defeat.Premise 3: “Therefore, space does not exist”.You claimed that since you have “proven” the premises wrong, the conclusion cannot possibly be right. Now that I have refuted your arguments concerning the aforementioned premises, you must reprove your position. The Argument of the SensesThe Argument of the Senses has many a time been used, and I will thoroughly enjoy explaining it yet again. The Argument of the Senses states that because your senses (i.e. sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) show you the physical universe, it must exist. My refutation to this argument is stated in the following syllogism:1. Everything that can be used as premises must first be, without a doubt, infallible and in existence.2. There is doubt that senses show what is real.3. Senses cannot be used a premises.Basically, it states that we can’t be sure that what our senses show us is real, and therefore cannot be used to prove anything.I have refuted everything that you disagreed with in your preceding rebuttal. I will now let you carry on the debate. Good luck![1] "space." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 10 Nov. 2011. .
The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

Con’s case seems to be mostly mitigation. He has argued that fracking is not “as” harmful, or that there is opportunity in fracking. Even if those were true, they do not directly show why fracking should not be restricted. Understand, Restricting fracking is not the same as banning it. We could reasonably restrict fracking without eliminating it as a source. I have argued that Fracking should be restricted for 2 reasons. 1. Fracking should be restricted as it is bad for the environment. Con does not really contend my point here. He merely argues that Fracking is “more friendly to the earth than traditional drilling. ” Con even states of Fracking “It allows for a small footprint. ” Thus, Con concedes that Fracking has a negative impact on the environment. It matters not if it is as not as bad, as bad, or worse than traditional drilling as the point made is that fracking does damage the environment. On a side note, Con claims that “More scientists disagree with man made climate change than agree,” this is blatantly false. Consider, “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. ” (. http://climate.nasa.gov...) 2. Fracking should be restricted as it produces health risks. Con does not contend this point and thus it stands. From my case and even if you buy con’s case, we see clearly that Fracking is bad for the environment and produces health risks. Due to these negative effects we can conclude that fracking should be restricted. The resolution is affirmed Thanks Con for participating in this debate.
The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

1.) Fracking should not be restricted as it is not harmful to the environment, and it is much more friendly to the earth than traditional drilling. Energy is necessary for life. Therefore it is important to get this energy efficiently and with minimal environmental impacts, currently fracking is the answer to that. It allows for a small footprint, and minimized negative effects of the earth. Studies performed by scientists and seismologists have proven multiple times that fracking does not cause earthquakes and never has, The cause found by researchers was that it is from wastewater injection wells, not fracking itself. So the question should not be "we should stop fracking because it causes earthquakes" but rather it should be "how can we most safetly dispose of our wastewater injection fluids?" Drinking water is also not contaminated by fracking, as previously stated, fracking happens well below the water table, more than a mile underground. Fracking does not cause the climate to change, climate change is simply used as a scare factor to promote political agendas. More scientists disagree with man made climate change than agree, here are 31,000 of them. http://www.petitionproject.org... 2.) Fracking gives us the opertunity to be self sufficient in energy. For years we have allowed our "friends" across the globe to supply us with the energy we need. We no longer need to be dependent on foreign soil, Innovasion and technology is allowing us to become self sufficient in energy, and this is not an oppertunity we can afford to pass up.
The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking. 1. Fracking should be restricted as it is bad for the environment. “The environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing include air emissions and climate change, high water consumption, water contamination, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, and health effects on humans. Air emissions are primarily methane that escapes from wells, along with industrial emissions from equipment used in the extraction process.” (https://en.wikipedia.org...) 2. Fracking should be restricted as it produces health risks. “A 2013 review on shale gas production in the United States stated, "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells." A 2011 hazard assessment recommended full disclosure of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and drilling as many have immediate health effects, and many may have long-term health effects.” (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Conclusion: Due to the negative effect on the environment as well as the health risks it is reasonable to “Restrict” Fracking.