BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

Con has never argued that psychological forums deserve to be qualified as self-help forums. The label of "self-help" is currently being used as a shorthand semantic. The dismissal of social anxiety disorder mispresentation is also insulting to social anxiety disorder sufferers who are one among many sufferers and don't deserve to be labeled as trying to take an excuse of specialization. Furthermore, no alternative disorder have been presented by Con to associate with self-help forums, so it would be appreciated for this nastiness to cease and desist. I also agreed with Con that real life self-help groups can be therapeutic, and the matter of professional psychiatry can be helpful as well. However, the issue at hand has to deal with the integrity of services offered. The resolution at hand is about whether those services should be regulated, not whether they're ideal treatment for a condition. If a service offers social aspects of a community, those social aspects need to be sensitively respectful in comparison to ordinary internet forums. Yes, they can possess great value, but that value can be easily jeopardized by trolls. Con also referred to slowing forums down as a problem, but if anything, slowing down said forums would be beneficial in order to ascertain quality standards. As it is, forums can runamuck, and that leads to short-term attention spans where issues are not really dealt with since traffic is so high. For example, clicking on the "new posts" link above will yield new threads constantly being created such that mature people with serious yet boring issues are overlooked. Con is also very dismissive of the matter of inherent market failure. Again, mental disturbance prevents socio-economic success itself such that people cannot connect professionally. I agree that better efforts should be made to facilitate their recovery, but that goes beyond the scope of this debate.
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

My opponent's suggestion that forums do not fit into the self-help category because they can specialize in certain disorders such as social anxiety that cannot be cured by those groups alone is false as I proved in my previous argumentation. I pointed out that forums are not required to have therapeutic effects, as they do acknowledge themselves (see source 1), because they are essentially about nothing but an exchange of information. No self-help group that offers support for people with certain disorders or diseases such as autism, aids and so forth, may it be online or in real life, can go beyond the exchange of information and social aspects of a community. They still posses a great value as the exchange with people with similar problems can lead to a better understanding of ones own situation. Calling such a forum out for fraud because it offers help for a certain disorder is preposterous as they hardly offer therapies that can cure disorders. They offer information which they certainly provide and that usually for free. There is no financial loss which is per definition part of a fraud. Having the government interfere with those communities will greatly lower their efficiency if the quality standard of a forum needs to be verified and then kept up by closely moderating the content of each and every thread that gets submitted. A quick exchange of information would no longer be granted and many people would get deterred by the idea that the content of their own posts will get analyzed by bureaucrats that probably do not have a degree in field they are supposed to monitor either. As for the relative few desperate and disturbed my opponent carelessly generalized as unable to connect with professional psychiatrists themselves: Trying to help them by monitoring online communities is a rather poor attempt. Other institutions such as schools would be way more efficient. Altering the current system and in a rather ineffective way to help a few is no good.
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

There are a few problems with those considerations: 1) The forums are advertised specifically and explicitly in conjunction with psychological disorders. Social anxiety disorder, for example, is not just a self-help issue: http://www.webmd.com... http://www.mayoclinic.com... Acknowledging them as "self-help forums" would tolerate "bait-and-switch" fraud. 2) When "self-help forums" are run anarchically, they drift towards conflict. Different people need help for different things. It's important that qualitative differences are managed separately so they don't get on each other's nerves. Those who exist within secure self-help forums are not entitled to relief at the expense of those who exist within insecure self-help forums. One's disturbance is not quantitatively more important than another's. As for technical moderation process concerns, the government could hire bureaucrats to focus solely on this task. 3) The desperate and disturbed of society are not well off. Their desperation and disturbance itself inherently prevents success, prosperity, and connections with social resources such as professional psychiatrists. On the other hand, the disturbed deserve access to organic solutions so they're not stuck on a vicious cycle of professional help. Therefore, they're in need of government assistance. The private sector cannot be left to correct the situation on its own because the lack of personal resources is an inherent market failure. On top of that, people can be disturbed and desperate due to government neglecting to monitor dysfunctional households, school districts, and elsewhere in the public sphere in the first place. Therefore, from the social contract, the disturbed and desperate are entitled to specific performance damages in terms of government monitoring. 4) Yes mutual aid can be effective without oversight, but that aid is real. Forums are not.
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

I would consider the idea of government getting involved in self-help forums to be rather redundant for several reasons. The vast amount of information that would need to get processed in such a manner would slow down the moderation process that already takes place in all respectable forums, and as I suspect in most self-help forums, by a great amount of time. I also doubt that it would be possible from a technical point of view. But that's to be neglected in this debate. I do not agree with my opponent's indication that self-help forums are particularly for the desperate and disturbed of society. Social and mental problems are fairly regular and those forums provide information to people who do not require professional assistance or get it additionally. Such forums function similar to self-help groups in real life. They attempt to solve personal problems through a process based on shared experience in a context of mutual understanding. They do not offer professional assistance and the community my opponent proposed as example of a community that requires regulation does point that out. [1] A community cannot replace a psychiatrist a desperate and disturbed person would certainly require and therefore it should not be treated as such. They can hardly be considered a refuge for anyone under any circumstances either as they are virtual boards that rely on exchange of information in written form. Any other sort of communication is not available and therefore a comparison between a forum with an institution that actually offers refuge is a misplaced one. Self-help groups in real life are hardly regulated either as they are usually organized by laymen. Joining self-help groups get recommended by many scientists. [2] [3] [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

If you would like an example forum of administrative failure, I would offer this example (it's a link to recent threads): http://www.socialanxietysupport.com... The forum is administered quite anarchically with little to no administrative oversight. Users constantly bash on one another's anxiety in telling each other to suck it up and deal with it. The conflict of different forms of anxiety (and lack of evaluation to see if people actually have anxiety) is not mediated at all. A better example of a forum ran with administrative responsibility can be found here: http://www.uncommonforum.com... This forum is far more calm and collected, giving its users the peace of mind needed to arrive at constructive solutions to their problems. Regulations should come from a combination of ministries/departments involved with information technology, mental health, and media censorship. That way, we know that sites are run with technical, professional, and social expertise. If administrators are not willing to keep a close eye on users in this especially sensitive profile, it's vital that they not be permitted to do so at all. Otherwise, the desperate and disturbed of society will have no reliable way of finding refuge. This includes understanding that expecting newly registered users to accept any "terms of agreement" is insufficient. The desperate and disturbed are equal to victims in a torture cell. They are willing to do anything to get help, even if that means clicking through material without reading it, material they might not even understand. Instead, duty of care must primarily lay on administrators since they are offering refuge to those in need. If trolling happens after the fact, it's a quintessential "bait-and-switch" form of negligence where they were offered refuge, but couldn't find it.
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

Please elaborate how these regulations would work and why those, who own a platform and may not know about the bad behaviour of certain members can be made responsible for the action of others. I would also like you to prove that such communities fail to deal with trolls themselves in such a dimension that would justify passing such a law. I will try and prove the opposite. I am not going to challenge that trolling can be a problem in this case as this debate is specifically about mentally weak people that might require protection. Good luck.
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

In contrast to most internet traffic, psychology forums deal with disturbed personalities who are looking for assistance. Allowing such forums to exist like ordinary forums does not protect the disturbed who can be marginally provoked into joining due to desperation. Therefore, when trolling happens on these forums, it is particularly heinous. Any administrators or owners of said websites who tolerate trolling in the slightest should be personally charged as criminals on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation, provocation, duress, etc. They are exploiting the vulnerabilities of the disturbed and desperate. My opposition might say that trolling is subjective, but psychologists hold themselves to high standards already. Ergo, it should be understandable what trolling really is on these forums.
Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good, Part Two!

. http://whofortedblog.com... Here is yet another link that confirms ghosts when you call it so called "bias" try calling out websites like creation101 and darwintheape. However, I believe with my links, you just don't want to accept it. I have shown proof that there is an afterlife. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have proved an afterlife. The experience with the tarot can't be viewed as coincidence because the chance are virtually none. I think I have presented more than enough proof while all con did was say the links were bias, and everything was just a coincidence.
Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good, Part Two!

Rebuttal 1: I thought you would be smarter than that. I Had to post the short version. I thought you were going to see the flaws in this. They only adress one form of ghost communication. EVP's and orbs are unexplainable. http://paranormal.about.com...Many say orbs are just dust, but, some orbs change directions multiple times. Something that dust can't do. Even if there is nothing by it, it is still a lot of fun.
Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good, Part Two!

When I read the article, I was at first surprised that what seemed to be a respectable science news site was posting this. I read further, until I finally realised... The article didn't even support your claim! No, really, if you had actually read the article you would realise that it actually does not say that Einstein's laws prove ghosts, but actually debunks that claim. Forgive me for being rude, but don't throw bollocks at me. Check. Your. Sources. I'm still waiting for actual proof of spirits.
Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good, Part Two!

1. I am no expert on tarots, but it is just as likely that, right before going off to the pub, the parents got their tarots read and the cards said that this is a fine night and everything will be okay. Next thing you know, they're either getting arrested for DUI or not getting caught and instead killing four people on a drunken drive down the expressway. So?2. Spirit? What spirit? You mean the spirits that you've been drinking? <- This was a joke. But seriously, there is no real evidence for spirits, except for (un-trustworthy and/or drunk) people telling you that they've seen spirits. And those people have likely been drinking too many spirits.
Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good, Part Two!

Round two of the "Should Tarot Cards Be Considered Good? " debate! I will post a link to the original here, . http://www.debate.org... , so that those who do not know what this is about can follow us. And now, for the opening argument: In the previous debate, I stated that: 1. People should not base their decision of whether or not to DUI on tarot readings, they should just not DUI. 2. If a tarot reading seemed to have predicted a near-death scenario for a family member, this does not mean that the two are related. 3. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, hence I don't have to prove that tarot cards shouldn't be considered good, just refute your claims that it should.
Charity is an appalling excuse for the abuses of capitalism

Thank you for an interesting perspective. I think my opponent confuses the actual problems at hand, and his intentions are good, however misguided. Charity has never been the solution to the world's problems, but it certainly is not an appalling thing. The goal of many charities is to educate people, so they may bring themselves and others out of poverty. Charity is not the problem, lack of education is the problem, but forgive me, I digress. My opponent is actually saying that charity keeps people in poverty. This is simply not the case. Charity is just giving a helping hand to someone, although it is not required. Charity takes on many forms, and is a good thing in almost every way. If you want to make an argument for socialism, that is perfectly fine, but it has nothing to do with the resolution.
Charity is an appalling excuse for the abuses of capitalism

While my opponent makes some interesting points, there seem to be no real arguments to affirm the resolution. There are no facts, statistics, or anything else to support such a claim. Afterall, I assure you that charity absolutely DOES help those in need. Why don't we ask the thousands of Haitians, who benefited from one of the largest charities in history, if they believe charity is counter intuitive? They might have something to say about the resolution. . http://www.google.com... My opponent has shared only opinions, up to this point, but I will show some of the ways that charity is not simply a way for the wicked western world to feel better about its self indulging ways. St. Jude is not only one of the world leaders in cancer research and therapy, but also relies very heavily on charitable donations. Do I feel good when I give money to this charity? Yes. Do I do it for purely self serving motives? Absolutely not. My small donation is merely a small part of an extremely humanitarian effort that I support fully. Many people volunteer their time with the homeless. This IS a form of charity, and is in no way appalling. . http://www.google.com... My opponent's argument that charitable giving does little around the world is completely false, and the idea that people give to charity to free themselves of some greater responsibility is ludicrous, at best. Can more be done? Of course, more can always be done, but charitable efforts are certainly a big part of the overall picture. I implore my opponent to really find out what charities do around the world. Afterall, even if only 1000 lives a year are saved due to charities, the resolution should be negated, and that would be an utmost conservative number. Furthermore, the majority of charity that comes out of the U. S. come from individuals(83%), not businesses(4%). Foundations account for 13%. Keep in mind that these foundation's sole purpose is helping the less fortunate, which for all intents and purposes, is charity. . http://www.nps.gov...
Charity is an appalling excuse for the abuses of capitalism

Thanks for accepting. Just to clarify, here I am not talking about charity's obvious function of helping the dispossessed and the disadvantaged in society, and I am not intending to debate whether it is successful at this function . I am intending to debate a less obvious function of charity as a sort of social pacifier, an 'opiate of the masses' if you will. My contention is that this function exists and that it enables charity to be used as an 'excuse' for not doing something about the vast economic inequalities in the world. Charity, I claim, in its obvious function of helping the poor and disadvantaged, is largely impotent. Charity benefits a very small percentage of those who really need it. This failure of charity to help on a large scale is intrinsic to its nature, money given to charity is essentially the scraps off the table of rich Western nations. It is not in the self-serving interests of business to give a large proportion of their revenue to charity, nor can most ordinary people afford to give any large sums to charity. Despite this impotency, it still seems that Western societies at large are content with the notion that giving to charity is just about all we can do about poverty. Not only this, but by giving to charity people get some satisfaction from doing so, it doesn't matter whether this arises from a natural instinct or a socialised behaviour to help others - because of this phenomenon, charity essentially becomes a business with its commodity as redemption. You give some money to charity and feel the satisfaction from helping someone, you've 'done your bit'. This may seem all well and good on the face of it, but it is simply not enough. In order to really help the poor, something else needs to be done, something greater and more substantial than charity (I said I wasn't going to advocate socialism, but I see it as the final resolution to the problem of charity).
Charity is an appalling excuse for the abuses of capitalism

The 'abuses of capitalism' is a term that could be used to describe a whole host of societal ills, some perhaps less obvious than others. But in this debate I use the term in reference to those ills which charity is supposed to remedy; typically poverty and its various manifestations. And by 'appalling excuse' I am not talking about people who argue that 'capitalism is okay because we have charity' (if anyone has made such an argument). I am making a more subtle point that charity, regardless of the intentions of those involved in charity work, serves as a powerful ideological tool; the function of which is to eliminate or reduce a sense of guilt, or fulfill a sense of duty felt by the relatively well-off inhabitants of Western liberal democracies. The implicit assumption of the charitable is that giving to, or working for, charity is all we can do about the ills of society. By giving to charity we can carry on with our lives without having to think about the machinations that would bring about such ills in the first place. This is an attitude, an ideological standpoint, that cannot be justified, even if making this assumption is an easy trap to fall into. With this argument I am not advocating socialism, nor am I saying that charity is useless - pragmatically, charity does make a difference, albeit a small one, in the world. I am saying that charity as an ideological tool to distract from the genuine origins of social inequality and poverty is deplorable.
Youtube Debate

Sorry about the first video. I'll repost it. Along with 2 new ones. The End of the World one was hilarious. ---Trunk Monkey http://www.youtube.com... ---Sock Lops. (It does somewhat show some "private areas" at one point) It doesn't really make sense, but my friends and I quote it all the time. There are some funny spots and some boring spots, as well. Apparently, it's based on dreams or something. http://www.youtube.com... ---Alright, Byron. Haha. Canadian Border Patrol. We also quote this. Quite Frequently. http://www.youtube.com...
Youtube Debate

Ok, so I know this has been done several times before, but I want to do it. It doesn't matter if you post a video that has been already done. ----Rules---- 1. You can post up to two videos per round. 2. Post videos that are funny or random or stupid. 3. No nudity. 4. You must describe the video. ------I will start. Lucas plays a six year old kid named Fred. In an earlier episode, he calls a couple of pomeranians the neighboorhood squirrels. http://www.youtube.com... Banned Commercials. Pay attention to the "blind" guy. Haha. http://www.youtube.com...
Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal.

I have accepted your challenge and will go against this statement. I will chronically rebut the points you've stated and tell you why I stand corrected and ( is some cases ) why your points are redundant. . All in sport of debate. :D 1) "Porn makes women to be objectified for the pleasure of men " this point in some aspects being true cannot be taken into consideration for the very fact because you've stated its for men. Might I remind you that the viewers of porn are not only men but also include a large female audience. So your point is redundant. 2) You've stated that pornography is the exploited system where in fact the prostitution is the exploited system. Prostitution is very harsh and cannot be kept a track of because its not in public, its a private industry. And I hope you do realize the number of cases and problems the prostitution has caused, women have been raped, killed and discarded and sometimes actions haven't been taken because its not in the open, its a one on one session and know knows which story is the truth. 3) By making the Porn industry is illegal you will kill the employment of over thousands of people. Do we really want that? NO. In the United States alone the porn industry is over a 10 billion dollar industry and has been contributing heavily to the economy. By making it illegal, you'll be bringing down and almost destroying a nations economy. 4) I hope you do realizes, the porn industry has reduced the number of rapes significantly because teenagers can please themselves online, the prostitution industry hasn't only killed a large number of people in recent times, it itself asks for rape to take place by giving their agents to a random person for money. 5) By making the porn industry legal, we'll be hit with a revolt from the thousands of porn stars. Everything will crash down. Our world doesn't need this. Porn needs to stay. 6) Parents are implementing soft wares on their home PC to prevent kids from going on to these site. The most population of the people who watch porn are the teenagers. And porn isn't wrong, its just people having sex and being recorded. Its helpful for people who don't have girl friends or just need a stress relief. Why should we be against that? 7) And I have no clue what your last sentence meant.