BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debater's Choice

Rules: 1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules: 2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind. 3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i. e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments. 4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debate: . http://www.debate.org...) 5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that. 6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications. 7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible. Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. .. .. .
Fusion Power

I am continually impressed by your insight and well thought out opinions. I agree that even fusion weapons would not be able to completely eradicate the humans species. I am also reminded that we, as humans, will doubtless do our best to harness the power of fusion, whether or not it is best for our survival. While I am interested in your point about danger from a biological weapon, or even biological accident, I doubt that would destroy the human species either. Any sort of disease needs a living host to function, if that host was human, it would not kill them off immediately, and maybe not at all. If there ever was some sort of pathogen that had been genetically modified to kill off its host at once, I do not think it would not survive, due to the fact that there would be little time for it to evolve and infect another luckless person. That paired with mass quarantine would be enough to stop this disease from threatening the human race. As you pointed out earlier a war fusion is inevitable, and we can only hope that humans have become a multi planet species by then. Even though a war where thermonuclear hydrogen bombs were being dropped on civilians would probably probably not result in our extinction, it would doubtless push us back in fields such as medicine, science, and technology that are detrimental if we ever wish to leave earth and move up to the next level of intelligent life. In you latest argument you suggested that while nanotechnology proves a threat, but it could not destroy us as a race. I beg to differ. In a future where nanobots are so small they can rearrange object on an atomic level and reproduce artificially, we could potentially be holding a lit bomb in our hands. In the worst case scenario nanobots would have a bug in their program, or a glitch. One that instructed them to continue replicating until they ran out of material to do it. Within the space of a few hour Earth could be reduced to nothing more than billions of trillions of quintillions of nanobots. On the other hand, nanotechnology would make space travel and manufacturing infinitely easier. Fusion technology offers the same dilemma. As humans we will doubtless do our best to invent these technologies, but what is the chance that they will turn on us. Either by their own hand, or ours.
Fusion Power

You bring up many interesting points. I agree that humans greatest work will come when driven by desperation, when humans are threatened by extinction and the ties of money are no longer holding us to the past. Saying that great advances in technology will end in a utopia, is an exaggeration at best. We have seen great advances in many areas in the past 300 years, and the lives of humans -at least in developed countries- has become much more cushy. But as old problems are left behind, new ones show up. As advanced technologies such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and nuclear fusion become common, and the energy crisis and other twenty-first century issues into a thing of the past, problems such as robots making their own decisions, nanobots self replicating, and radiation will take their place. It is true that no other nuclear bombs have been released on the civilian population, after the two dropped on Japan that killed hundreds of thousands. However, I would not say that humans have learned their lesson in area of atomic power. In the cold war the US was worried about a preemptive strike from Soviet Union disabling their capabilities for a reprisal. The program (MAD) Mutually Assured Destruction was launched to provide a nuclear deterrent for Soviet Union. American B-52"s with nuclear bombs in their bomb bays and orders to release hell on the Soviet Union if the US had been bombed. Without this nuclear deterrent it is likely Soviet Union would have dropped the uranium bomb on America, and turned the cold war hot. The fact that millions of civilians were going to die, would not have stopped them. To conclude, I would remind those reading this that humans have always fought, as are species continue to evolve are conflicts grow in size and number of casualties. While a fusion reactor would grant humans infinite energy; it would also give us more destructive power than an atomic bomb. Given humans history of destructive power I would not trust us with that power unless we were facing extinction.
Fusion Power

Your insight in the matter is truly profound thank you for the enlightenment. I understand our downfalls as a species and the bad definitely out weighs the good. Essentially I can't agree that humanity will abuse this power, its inconclusive. The few merits we have held us in check for the most part this far along. We abused nuclear fission in the worse way imaginable, could that not be humankinds equivalent of pin pulling, learning our lesson. I think so. Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima no other bombs have been dropped on a populace since. Nuclear fusion in humanity's hands will prove more beneficial initially after that yes we will develop a new age in weaponry, will we destroy ourselves that depends on so many factors, mainly on whose developing the technology. The forerunners in that field are nations that have nuclear weapons now. (China, US, UK, etc.) One of which is the only country that has used these weapons maliciously, they seem to have bigger problems than petty wars nowadays. Problems like the energy crisis we are faced with, which our children will have to fix, global warming, space exploration, things of that nature which hinder humanity on this rock. If we are to continue destroying ourselves in our ritual suicidal bouts, I think it'll be accidental more than intentional. Unlocking fusion power won't be something held from the public, and generally people are opposed to dying outright the public's influence no matter the nation will keep this in check enough, and that's all we need for the technology to take root initially until it becomes second nature enough to where its controlled not by one, but all. In conclusion, this is something we need now, and with need we start to build desperation. Desperation out of necessity the only thing holding this back is greed essentially. Commercialism is so strong now its dampening necessity, we can put them on the back burner for someone else to solve later, lets get that money today. When desperation out weighs commercialism, which is more likely to happen than another world war right now, we'll get things like nuclear fusion, nanotechnology, and ending in utopia.
Fusion Power

If humans ever manage to create a sustained fusion reaction, if we are able to fuse hydrogen into helium we will have unlocked the same energy that powers our sun. This breakthrough would allow humans to access a near limitless amount of power. However, it would also give humans the tool to destroy themselves, and all life on this planet. If we look at the history of the human race, we have always been looking for weapons that are more lethal; more efficient machines for killing. When humans first became conscious our most fearsome weapon was the club. Often of made from wood - with the occasional stone head- this weapon was made out of necessity. Humans lacked the claws, muscles, teeth, and ferocity of many natural predators, so they came up with tools that would give them an edge. Then came the spear. Then the bow. The sword soon followed. As humans progress into a more advanced species we see their weapons becoming more fearsome, and less focused on hunting and defense. It is now the year of 2014 and we have weapons of mass destruction, automatic machine guns, precision bombs, ballistic missiles, and perhaps the most fearsome invention of all time, the atom bomb. History shows that as humans develop into a more evolved race, our conflict continually become large and are fought with more devastating weapons. Humans have always wanted more power, weather in the form of military, technology, or government. Giving humans a fusion reactor would be like giving a little kid a hand grenade and hoping he wouldn't pull the pin. The little kid would be interested, and not understanding the consequences, he would pull the pin. Out of his ignorance he would kill himself and any other unlucky toddlers in the room. If we humans created a fusion reactor, we would be interested, we would pull the pin, and we would not understand what was happening until to late. While a fusion reactor would give us near infinite energy, it would also give us a destructive force, one so great that there would be no second chance.
Fusion Power

It is true that fossil fuels are finite, and will run out eventually. If we could create a sustained fusion reaction, the energy crisis would be a thing of the past. However, fusion would also gives humans extreme destructive power. It is my belief that we should look towards an energy option that doesn't have the potential to push humankind back into the stone age. Energies derived from geothermal, wind, water, and the sun will show mass improvement in efficiency in the near future. All these types of energies are renewable; they are not dependant on the fossil fuels that are doomed to run out in the near future. While green energies such as these would not produce the same power as a fusion reactor, they would push humans to keep innovating and inventing. If a fusion reactor was ever created humans would not have the same drive to invent and expand because we would have near infinite energy and comforts, and when our needs our satisfied we will not feel the urge to move on, we will not feel the need to explore other planets because life on this one offers everything a man could want. Additionally, fusion reactors would be quite dangerous to mankind. Fusion would be hundreds of times more powerful than fission, and look what we have done with fission. When it was discovered that splitting uranium would release unheard of power, it was not long until we turned it into a bomb, it was not long until we dropped two of those bombs (hiroshima and nagasaki) on a civilian population killing hundreds of thousands. Even though we have not dropped another atomic bomb on the civilian population, we have had numerous accidents. In Japan toxic levels of radiation are still being emitted from the nuclear core of Fukushima, and radioactive dust and debris has spread around the plant for miles. The area that was affected by the meltdown will never be the same; families that were put out of their homes because of radiation are still not allowed to come back for an extended period of time. Fukushima will live on as a reminder of the devastating power of fission, even when it is being harnessed and controlled by humans. Fusion is hundreds of times more powerful than fission, even if it is never used as a weapon, an accident involving fusion could have dire consequences. History doesn"t show that we as humans have become more peaceful as we evolve. Our conflicts have become bigger and more bloody. Should we trust ourselves with a weapon that uses the same technology as our sun? An object so powerful that we can feel its heat from ninety-two million miles away. That is the question that you must ask yourself: Should humans be allowed to have the power that could devastate our cities, our nation? I leave you to ponder. References: . http://fukushimaupdate.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://polywellnuclearfusion.com...
Fusion Power

I must agree with you that this may have been one of the most enlightening arguments I have ever had the good fortune to find my self in. I feel our argument has somewhat strayed from the track which it first stared on, and I apologize in advance for not moving back towards that track immediately. I have been very impressed by the research and logical thinking you have put into the majority of your arguments. However, I quote, " artificial intelligence will continually keep nanotechnology under our control." I mean no disrespect, but does that not seam like a paradox. It is my understanding that the basic definition of artificial intelligence is an artificial agent (computer) that can "think" and make decisions by itself. By saying that nanotechnology is kept under our control by AI is contradictory, because something that can think for itself may decide that it no longers likes being under the control of those that are infinitely less bright (humans). Moving back towards the realm of nuclear fusion, I review your links in the previous point and was fascinated to learn how much effort we have been putting into a technology that could allow us to step into the next level of advanced societies or fall out of the silicon age. I'm excited to hear your closing argument, and appreciate the research you have put into this.
Fusion Power

This is possibly the most refined academic discussion, I've ever had the pleasure of partaking in. To business, I comprehend your refutation of biological warfare. Unfortunately with my latest argument I have to withdraw my argument on biological warfare being humanity's downfall. Due to the fact that the Geneva Convention, International Law of Armed Conflict, and other systems, have forbidden any nation from procedurally using these weapons indiscriminately. Not to say this isn't a pending threat just a more unlikely one. The system of checks and balances regarding this greatly reduce the risk alone. In previous human history the viruses and diseases which have plagued humanity thus far, have only left a bleep of damage on the world's population as a whole. To address the threat of nanotechnology, this is indeed a serious future implication of death, perhaps in a century or less we will use nanotechnology to replicate materials to more desirable useful things. This technology will not be humanity's destruction at least in the realm of my own understanding or this debate. When our society is based on this technology our want and needs will be utterly sated in one go. Self-replicating nanotech, which will by then according to Moore's law, will be completely under mankind's control based on our technological prowess alone. In this future in which I refer, let's say 2100 as a standpoint, nanotechnology will be very much apart of our basic households then. The control of this technology will not come from us alone it'll come from our technology as any other application we have even today, everything is trending towards becoming digital. All things we may have then I can't begin to imagine, but it's not foolhardy to say that quantum computation , or a lesser technology to this, artificial intelligence will continually keep nanotechnology under our control. We understand threats now in 2014, we've seen movies like the Terminator, iRobot, and let's not forget Battlestar Galactica which is a TV show, that portray these pending threats of technology turning on humanity. If we can invent such grand designs, I think it's safe to say that they will be completely controlled by mankind through elaborate systems of failsafes. We are just that intelligent, we can program A.I.s, we can keep quantum computers within the bounds of mankind's best interest, and we will be able to destroy them if need be. To end this part of our debate I'm keeping this point short, your closing argument is well anticipated. We can perceive the threats coming towards us, but there's no doubt in seeing today's world as it is, we are in some kind of trouble. With that said I've also taking the time out to talk and discuss with my rational peers, and see where we are in the world by using this invention called the internet, that's possible in this world now. With that notion said we will succeed our past.
Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Con opens the final round beginning with the contention that some people say that marijuana helps autism, and as such it should be legalized for those parents who want to test it out. I'd like to point out that this doesn't refute any of my arguments (which I will relay once more later on in my rebuttal). Further, marijuana is already legal for this purpose in the form of medical marijuana. And, there are special licenses that doctors can obtain to do medical experiments, so this is irrelevant. So now onto his rebuttal of my 5 arguments... 1. I have no idea what Con's "rebuttal" is trying to state. What I said was that the resolution in question was regarding children, i.e. those 18 and under. Extend my arguments until Pro refutes them. 2. Con says that he's not trying to get autistic children to break their parents rules; however, he states this after a round in which he wrote, "We need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, cut for profit." Because we can assume that the parents of autistic children would not want this for their kids, we must assume that Con believes the autistic children should be able to go against their parents. 3. My point here was that there are alternatives to marijuana that we should be encouraging for those who use it for medical purposes. He said that science doesn't need pin point accuracy. Uh... okay? My point hasn't been negated. 4. Con says that the legal status of marijuana doesn't matter; however, the resolution didn't say anything about changing the law or assuming that the laws were different (or that they should be different). 5. Con still maintains that an all-autistic gang is the best option; however, fails to mention why. I believe such a thing would not only be unethical but unfeasible. Moreover, he still didn't refute any argument from my 5th point. So basically, extend all of my arguments until I get a sufficient rebuttal :)
Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Rest assured, my game face is on. I imagine that I'll need it for this debate. I'd also like to suggest to my opponent that further discourse be laced with reeferences to marijuana. To voters: finding them all will earn you brownie points. Here is a rather elephantine list of slang terms to utilize: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... ======= Contention ======= I was zooming through news headlines this morning, and there was a report claiming that marijuana was charged with curing an autistic boy of his chronic symptoms of autism. http://www.kauz.com... (The video in this link will really hit home.) http://www.independent.co.uk... http://rawstory.com... Just Google 'Marijuana Cures Autism' or anything of similar kind, and you'll see pages and pages of these claims. Some are loco, but there are a few that I wouldn't dismiss as light stuff. As of yeh, there has been no reliable scientific study to conclusively confirm or deny these, thus I contend that we ought to legalize marijuana for autistic children so that scientists may get to the root of this claim. As I have debated "Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization" atleast 51 times durong the past month, I used the term 'allow' and not 'require' because mandated marijuana is no better than its current ban. Another, better, solution is: all parents willing to allow their autistic children to consume marijuana will be used as part of the study. ======= Reefutation ======= 1. While the arguments are probably stacked in the favor of 18 legalization, if Pro toke this debate to argue that point, she's in the wrong place. 2. I'm not advocating or debating that children should break their parents' rules. Given the probable physical and mental condition of those children eligible for this study, I highly doubt any would be able to lay hands on a stash of pot, let alone hide their habit from their parents. 3. Pro atleast gets up against the stem of my argument here. However, while there are more alternatives than one could shake a stick at, science is still wet behind the ears when it comes to the study of marijuana. We don't need pin point accuracy, but we need to have at least some scientific backing for our claims. I don't advocate this for the proven effX, but in order to prove the effects. 4. Post-fiat, marijuana would be legal for autistic children, so the parents would not be condoning illegal drug use. 5. Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further. I realize that there are preeferable alternatives, most notably the formation of an all-autistic gang. Note: I'll give anyone a gold star who finds all 28 hidden reeferences.