BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the one child policy in China is right

So far in the debate, DiggyDawg has provided close to nothing to refute my previous points. Moreover, where he does make claims against my arguments, he fails to back them up with any facts. Furthermore, he uses words like "believe" or "perhaps", suggesting to me that many of his claims are opinion based rather than factual. Having said this, it is fair to conclude that DiggyDawg has thus far failed to adequately refute my points. Nevertheless, I will still refute the claims my opponent has made to the best of my ability. 1. "What is popular is not always right" While personally I do agree with this statement, you miss the more important point of my first argument, one that I thought was quite obvious. My point is that because of fact that the Chinese people have a better understanding of the situation in China than outsiders as well as a better understanding of the one child policy (for they are the ones being affected), their judgement on the one child policy best reflects its rightfulness, making the 76% statistic very reliable. To clarify this point, here is a simple example: In the sport of hockey, professional referees are called to judge a game rather than a mere hockey fan. This is because a referee has a better understanding of the rules of the game, thus his judgement reflects more accuracy. Likewise, the Chinese people have a better understanding of the policy, therefore their judgement is best. To summarize, Chinese people's adequate knowledge on the policy and on China's current situation makes their 76% judgement in favor of the policy much more meaningful than just a popular vote. It makes it accurate, reliable, and truthful. 2. "Chinese people could move out into the country, allowing for more room. But that is up to them. " This is not a counterargument to my second argument. You are simply offering your solution to how to free up room in China. 3. "I believe there is a demand for things such as doctors. " This is solely an opinion until you can back it up with evidence and a source. 4. "A higher rate of money does not always equate to higher quality living. " Again, where is the proof? Also, higher savings was only one of my points. DiggyDawg did not address any of the other points I made under argument 4, such as: less of a strain on social services, government spendings, and reduced risks of death or serious injury during pregnancy for women. 5. "That is your opinion" True, it is an opinion, but it is one that is derived from facts and moral reasoning. Thanks
Superman Can Destroy Any Superhero

Con has made many valid and excellent points. Both Superman and Thor have incredibly strength and invincibility. This does not mean that nothing can hurt them though. I'm glad we have established this. Thor, although being a god, does not have superspeed. His ability to move quickly and swiftly is used for travel purposes only. This serves as a disadvantage. Superman on the other hand can use his flight and speed for travel and combat which is something Thor can not use to his advantage during a fight. This is practically a fight of Thunder God vs. Super Alien. Both are immortal, yes. Reiterating, Superman can only be hurt by kryptonite. However, Thor's main and trustworthy tool is his hammer. If he loses this which he has been known to do, he is quickly rendered vulnerable. Superman's powers are all built within him. In one showdown with Lex Luthor, he picked up a mini-continent and threw it into space; this being an excellent example of his strength. Another one of Thor's weaknesses is his familiarity with Earth. Superman has fought and lived on earth since he was a child. He is accustomed to love, the people, and how society works. This is all new to Thor when he arrives. Being able to adapt to his surroundings is a major flaw that must be taken into consideration. Superman has human values since he was raised by two of them. He is relatable and can serve as an excellent companion. Thor however is not as relatable due to his life in Asgard. All that can be related with him is his jobs and duties as a god. While Lex Luthor has always been one of Superman's primary enemies, he posseses the ability to fight off anything, noting back to his powers. While Thor "defends all that call Earth home," Superman defends Earth that his is home. Thor's hammer might be fast and break the speed of light, but Thor himself is not. Superman has the mobility and speed to quickly manuever around obstacles and defeat his enemies with swift precision. A hammer such as Thor's compared to his own speed would create a sloppy and destructive mess. Thor is just a "strong guy" without his hammer and Superman has beaten plenty of them in the past. Thor has a tendency to lose his cool and go all out on someone rendering him imparied and out of control, whereas Superman has the ability to control these faults due to his humbleness, concentration, and high morality. So in conclusion - Superman has superior powers, a relatable background, a home to defend, not someone else's home to defend, and the stamina to take down Thor swiftly. I concede that he is not a god, and Thor is superior in this way, but that does not mean Thor is completely invulnerable and Superman could take quick care of this. Thank you to my opponent for a good debate. Good luck with your votes!
Superman Can Destroy Any Superhero

(Before I begin, do you ever have problems with the text entry fields on this site? I get some lag in them where it skips words or characters sometimes. Operating with the Firefox client.) Good points, pro. I at first saw your argument as something that measured only the might of the hero, yet I believe my option is still valid. I will be arguing that Marvel's Thor is a superior hero. Thor is one of the Asgard, based off of the Norse mythological pantheon. Though he has had several alter-egos, the original is Dr. Donald Blake, an M.D who he combined with when sent to Earth by his father to learn humility. While it's reasonable to classify Thor as a superhero, he's obviously much more. Thor is a god. The strongest of the Asgard, he is also immortal and capable of sensing objects moving in excess of the speed of light. Flight, control of Earth's elements, and a healing factor are also among his capabilities. When it is the case that his already immense strength and stamina are not enough, he can go into a berserker rage, increasing his strength and stamina tenfold. He even has a degree of reality bending powers, as he's been shown to be capable of time travel at various points in his publication history. Thor is without flaw. As a god that has witnessed many millenniums, he is as wise as he is mighty. His only potential weakness is his reliance on his hammer Mjolnir. However, the fact that only he can pick the hammer up, and its enchantment to always return to him mitigates this weakness significantly. While Superman delivers in American fashion, Thor operates on a much larger scope. Generally acting as a moral hero that is opposed to slaying his foes, he sometimes must betray his code. However, those that he shows no mercy to are enemies that Superman could not even fathom. While Superman primarily concerns himself with fighting a rich tycoon with aspirations of power, Thor fights the forces that would bring Ragnarok, the apocalypse, to the world. Unlike Superman, Thor does not always have the option to show mercy. Thor is a hero that can teach us much. While Superman fights for the American way, Thor does not distinguish men based on borders. He is a champion that protects man from entities that no other hero can stand against. He is the child of the Earth mother, and therefore defends all that call Earth home. His divine nature and compassion for humanity therefore places him on a higher pedestal than Superman.
Superman Can Destroy Any Superhero

Allow me to clarify where I had not before -- This is only a debate with superheroes. Preferably from Marvel or DC. They do not have to be major. You may use any you like. Round 2 is for introducing your hero and giving a background. Round 3 is for saying why they are better than the others hero. Superman is also known as Clark Kent. He was raised by rural farmers after he landed on earth from his blown up planet, Krypton. Clark is unlike any superhero. Not only is he practically invincible, but he is a humble, honest man with strong morals. I think that this makes someone a hero more than anyone else. His one flaw is kryptonite. Get him with this, and he's done for. But Superman has super strength, the ability to fly, lasor vision, x-ray vision, super senses, and is an honest citizen that gets the job done not sloppily or messy unlike a lot of other heroes. Superman really delivers things in the "American way" with liberty, justice, and due process. He is fair, merciful, and still packs a powerful punch. I believe that Superman is not only the best superhero because of his powers, but because of his honest integrity.
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

Yes i agree with the larger Arsenal of fallout 4 but there were a lot of interesting guns in fallout three, where I fallout 4 there are a lot of guns but they are just so repetitive and it gets kinda boring. I for one am a melee man and there are a lot of different and unique melee weapons. It seems like in fallout 4 they focus on certain areas, for example it looks like Bethesda put a lot of more effort in the melee weapons than they did actual guns.
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

The guns of Fallout 3 were very unique yes. But I did feel like there was a lack of variant for fallout 3's guns.The first thing I did in fallout 3 was do the megaton quest and save megaton so the sheriff would die and I could take his Chinese Assault rifle. Now all I needed to do was keep finding ammo for it and I was set for a good part of the game. When in Fallout 4 there was always an enemy that had a better gun then you. And so you constantly are achieving better weapons and it feels like your arsenal is getting stronger and stronger. Its such a good feeling. And don't get me started on the weapon crafting. So much fun! :D
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

Okay I agree with the big open world of fallout 4, and I agree with how fallout 3s story is much better but something I dislike about fallout 4 are the guns. Although there is a wide selection of guns I fell as if they could have put more details into the guns and made them look a lot better. Fallout 3 I like for the fact that it feels more like a wasteland instead of a ghost town.
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

Although I did exaggerate a little bit I still stand by my opinion that fallout 4's world is a lot more livelier than fallout 3's. Although you could make the argument that the world didn't feel like a wasteland, I will ask you one question. Would you rather walk around in the green and brown world of fallout 3 or the larger and much prettier world of fallout 4. Not to mention the horrendous gun play in Fallout 3. Although the game just a shooter, it still needs a good combat system in order to make the game enjoyable. There isn't really a mission were it doesn't require killing something. Also I found myself using V.A.T.S more than I should have. While in Fallout 4 I did not. However even I have to admit something.... Fallout 3's story is so much better that Fallout 4.
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

The story element is how you stated your argument stating that fallout 4 has added more to the series than the 3rd. If you want to talk about graphics and gameplay then you could have said something on the lines as it was made a lot better, but of course it looks better for the fact that is is a lot newer than fallout 3, which was released in 2008 whereas fallout 4 was released this year. I don't know what game you played there are enemies everywhere in fallout 3 there is never a time where I go 20 minutes without seeing anything,mothers are people everywhere.
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No)

How is a story element affect the gameplay? Fallout 3's combat system was flawed and needed improvement. The world never felt alive, rather just empty with a feral ghoul here and there. Although Fallout 3 is a amazing game and experience, it can't compete with Fallout 4's beautiful world and fun fast paced gunplay. But hey that you opinion man :D
Deregulated Capitalism

A. how do you merge work and school perfectly together if the majority of his waking life is spent doing labor? The person owning the capital does not have a vested interest in the child's safety much less his education. So my opponent still has not addressed the lack of a proper education of a child who would be working 16 hour days. B. I believe I made it clear that the hypothetical situation I made up was that of a libertarian's conception of capitalism. Meaning that there is no government interference in private ownership which falls into the sphere of economics. This includes the price of labor and the prices charged for the goods produced from that labor. So if a person's labor is worth 10 cents for the goods produced yet the owner turns around and sells those same goods for 5 dollars without any price control than the consumer is at a large disadvantage especially if these goods happen to be essential for survival (food, clothes, shelter etc.) Since not everyone can be an owner of capital in a capitalist system we can assume that a large majority of people would fall into the category once again reaffirming this would not be good for the general population. C. Once again I go back to the lack of education of the general populace. If the general populace is not educated enough then they will manipulated into doing irrational things such as... cutting taxes on the rich instead of feeding the poor. If the rich do not want to pay taxes and have the power and influence not to they will most likely keep voting to minimize the amount of taxes they pay while influencing a sheepish populace to vote their way. Again this effects equality directly and there would be a clear bias for the rich. D. This argument is extremely fallacious and does not really make sense. It goes along the lines of this... the purpose of wearing a seatbelt is self defeating if my car gets crushed by an 18 wheeler thus a seatbelt is not important in any given situation or at any given time. However, we know this not to be true since wearing a seatbelt does indeed save lives especially in high impact crashes even though we have those occasional moments where sh!t happens. So just because we cannot prevent all accidents does not mean we should increase the likely hood of them by throwing away all safety regulations. r2A. Again I go back to the uneducated masses. A rich person has no rational basis for paying stranger's public school. Reasons being that if they become educated they can 1. be competition for them in the free market system 2. start voting against the vested interest of the rich 3. compete with them for power and influence over government policies. r2B. My opponent's second part of his second rebuttal is precisely why I do not advocate a deregulated capitalist system because in an ideal democratic system equality is the corner stone and without equal influence over government policy the interest of the poor will be crushed by the interest of the rich.
Deregulated Capitalism

R1A. Best prepare the kid for work. He'll never know the difference later.If education and work are perfectly merged, the child will have top physical and mental health. This leads to a better generation of people.R1B. So what?One can live on 80 cents a day if they work for it (raise crops, etc.) My opponent does not specify the society we work in! It can be a backwards society where this is still the norm.R1C. Taxing the richIf the rich are really rich, we can just tax them for public funds (welfare, improvement, etc.) Then we can feed the poor.R1D. Even precautions cannot guarantee safety. Sh!t happens.R2A. Free public schools, anyone? R2B. The rich have a right to democracy as well. True democracy is equal to all non-government officials. Regards, Brainmaster.
Deregulated Capitalism

A deregulated form of a capitalism such as the libertarian's conception of it is generally bad for society and increases the gap between the rich and the poor. Well there are many things that are many adverse effects to certain areas of society: 1. No Laws for the Safety of Children or Mandatory Education Hours In the Libertarian's conception of capitalism there is a lack of child labor laws. The lack of child labor laws directly effects the areas of education and the safety of the next generation of citizens. This form of capitalism in its ideal form would leave the amount of time that employee works and the amount of money that the employee earns completely up to the discretion of the employer. Since the employer has no basis for how he should treat his employees he could pay them 10 cents a day and make them work 16 hour days if he pleases so long as it is not affecting the amount of money their labor is outputting. Since the goal of capitalism is to make the most profit possible while inputting the least amount of capital, there is a rational basis for why this would be true in many cases. Working sixteen hour work days would be detrimental to a child's education especially since eventually they have to sleep and most likely going to school in between work and sleep would be an exercise in futility since they would not benefit. Without safety laws certain work environments (steel mills, coal mines, oil rigs, etc.) would be extremely dangerous for anyone and this would be tenfold for a child. Again I go back to my definition of capitalism in which the person who owns the business wants to get as much profit as possible while inputting the least amount of capital as possible. Safety precautions may turn out to be costly and a drain on the employers profit so the rational thing to do would be to not put in any resources into this endeavor. Furthermore since the employer has no sanctions to worry about he would be better off not looking out for the safety of his employees. The lack of such laws would be detrimental to our society because this would result in the death of a substantial amount of children and the ones that do survive would be uneducated and thus more likely to be manipulated into doing things that are not in their rational interests. 2. Deregulation would be detrimental to our democracy Our democracy would suffer as a direct consequence of the lack of education of the masses because the masses would not know how civics or the political system would work. If most of the populace cannot make an informed decision about who our leaders should be then the privileged few will. This could easily convert a democracy into an aristocracy in which the political system would only benefit the rich. One could see how this would be violating the principles of democracy in which each rational agent votes on behalf of his own good.
A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

Eternal infaltion, Multiverse - There is no point on discussing them, because there is no evidence for them.Infinite regression - If there is infinite number of past events, or infinite number of causes, that means present does not exist, but we live now in present, therefore there is no infinite regression of past events, or infinite number of causes. I will give an example for Con to understand:Let's assume you want to do and action A. But to do it you have to ask permission tfrom your chief, but he (or she) has to ask his chief, and his chief has to ask for permissionto his, and etc., if this goes forever up to infinity, that means you will not be able to do action A. That means if the chain of causes of universe is infinite then this universe does not exist. Or if universe does not have beginning, that means there are infinite number of past events, which means present cannot exist. That means, universe has a beginning, and there must be an uncaused cause in the chain of causes. Sorr for keeping it short, I am at work now.
A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

"If not everything has a cause, then the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause," - CON. This is obviously a fallacy. You have to show how universe fits into "not everything". It is a faith based jump. And if universe doesn't have a cause then it has infinite chain of past events, but it is obvious that it doesn't have infinite chain of past events. Can cause of universe have a cause itself? May be it has, but my contention is there must be an uncaused cause in the chain of causes also, it cannot go ad infinitum. If the last cause is uncaused, therefore it is eternal."All things caused occur predictably," - CON. It is false. Read about Unpredictable Solar Flares. "Molecular bonds and electron motions are entirely described by quantum mechanics," - CON. It does, because it involves electrons, protons which are particles. But quantum mechanics itself doesn't work for molecules, take a ball and throw it somewhere, it will act accordance with Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. " And who is to say that the multiverse is caused or quantum vacuum itself is caused?" - CON. Where did they come from, are they eternal, and etc? Point is there is no evidence for them. So arguing for multiverse, as a fact, is just non-sense. (But it is a nice theory, and has some degree of plausibility.)"We have something to hat is both eternal and atemporal" - CON. Actually, I said non-spatial, which means transcends space, atemporal, which means transcends time."Stating it's not X Y or Z doesn't say anything about what it IS." - CON. Well, it is also fallacy. Not immortal means mortal. Not temporal means eternal. And I can give "infinite" number of examples. You just chose the examples which suits you. Consciousness - Fact is, mental and material properties does not intersect. Consciousness is not material, and matter does not give consciousness to itself. Interactions between the immaterial mind and material body cannot occur. It is The Introspective Argument. We can doubt existence of anything, and just call them illusions, but except consciousness, as Sam Harris said, "Consciousness is the one thing in the universe that cannot be an illusion". If there is no interaction between immaterial and matter, therefore matter cannot be cause of immaterial, therefore universe or anything in the universe cannot be cause of consciousness. And unconsciousness things cannot give consciousness, therefore the cause for consciousness must be immaterial and conscious.