BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Doctors make you sick

I accept because I personally believe you are wrong. Simply because not all doctors are that way. I live in Canada you may also live here, but the doctors I know aren't just in the business of making money, but in giving support to the elderly, the sick the low income people who need medical services. If you tell them your money situation they will help you by either lowering the price or giving you a payment plan. THEY DO NOT MAKE ME SICK! Why would they? They payed a lot of money to go to university, they went through a lot of hard work to ensure that peoples lives can be lived comfortably and safely and they SHOULD make lots of money for their services. Their main purpose is not to make loads of money. Anybody can try to do what your saying and many people do, things like stealing from the company you work for, using the company credit for your own use, lying to you boss about your work hours. However this is not the majority that does these things. I believe many doctors feel a sense of honor at what they do. Just from my personal experience I feel a sense of honor at fixing farmers machinery, welding up machines that will make their lives run smoother. I'm sure many of us feel this honor. What greater honor could there be to one who saves lives everyday, brings babies into the world, make peoples lives comfortable, and increases human lifespans. Poor advice? I have never had this experience therefore you must define what you mean by saying that every doctor gives poor advice. Drugs are a choice, people can say no, but if the doctor says you should take it it will probably be beneficial to you. Yes they cost money. It takes money to make money however. Lots of technology went to making drugs, technology costing billions and billions of dollars. Therefore it makes sense they would cost good money. Come on, I want to hear more on what you say, I believe this could be an awesome debate and will respond to everything that you wish. Thanks.
Belief vs degree of certainty

how is belief different from degree of certainty? does it make sense to be 99% sure that X is false, but still "believe" that X is true? if so, what would you mean by "belief"? if you know how sure someone is of something, then whether or not they claim to "believe" in it is redundant. it's like if you know that Bob is 6 feet tall, would you gain any new information by asking him if he is tall? no. someone being called "tall" is just an over-generalization of their height which you already know the exact measurement of, and their exact height is much more informative than whether or not they consider themselves "tall". if someone is 99% sure that X is false and also claims to believe that X is true, that is like a midget saying that they are tall - the words "tall" and "believe" are redundant and misleading for the same reasons. do you see what i mean?
Belief vs degree of certainty

Scenario: You learn that Joe considers himself to be about 50% sure that God exists and consequently about 50% sure that God doesnt exist. If you ask Joe "do you believe in God? ", my position is that a "yes" or "no" answer will not offer any previously unknown substantive information. when people disagree with me on this, i really dont understand what they mean by the word "belief", so i rely on you to help me understand what you mean by "belief" (using more than only synonyms or examples).
Belief vs degree of certainty

I suppose I disagree, beliefs should not be measured as how certain you are of something, although some people today use the saying seeing is believing. Belief in the theory of evolution has to come with some degree of certainty, that is simple how a scientists think. Belief in religion is based off one's faith, and to a religious person, like me, that faith provides the 100% certainty, and that cannot be taken from me. I suppose overall it just depend on the kind of person you are, and whether or not you use faith as a base for belief, or science.
Belief vs degree of certainty

im not sure if you really disagree with me or not. the thing im arguing here is that people use the word "belief" as just a generalized measurement of their degree of certainty. do you disagree with that or do you insist that belief entails something separate/more? it doesnt sound like you do. i think the reason this topic is confusing is because the word "belief" is such a vague construct to begin with. ive talked to many people who say they believe in God, and i've asked them "how sure are you that God exists?". their answers have ranged from under 50% to over 100%. it bothers me when so called atheists say "you are either an atheist or not". it is like saying "you are either tall or not". at face value, i suppose they are technically right, but how tall does one have to be, to be considered tall? how sure does one have to be, to be considered a believer? some say over 50% sure, some say over 90%, some say degree of certainty has nothing to do with belief whatsoever! so can we all agree that belief is a stupid word that has no agreed upon sensible meaning? that is why i didnt define belief in my opening post; people dont agree on how it is to be used, just as people dont agree on who is to be considered tall. i would say that if someone is 50% sure God exists, then they are on the fence, and i wouldnt be able to accurately label them as a theist or an atheist. even if they are 99% sure god exists, then saying they believe in god is a gross overstatement because they are 1% sure that God doesnt exist. the statements "god exists" and "god probably exists" are completely different. if someone says "god probably exists", that is incompatible with the statement "god exists". you cant accurately identify with both statements.
Belief vs degree of certainty

Thanks again for the interesting topic. To explain it simply and quickly, there are obviously people on earth who believe in God, and there are those who don't. Those who believe in God cannot completely prove God's existence, but they have the bible and faith. This makes them almost 100% certain God is real. Those who are atheist are so because they do not have this faith, but since they cannot prove God doesn't exist until they have at least searched the whole universe for him, they can only be 50% sure that God does not exist. Do you understand the position I'm taking? P.S.: When I made a reference to the bible, I was just saying anything that a religion has to connect itself to God, in this case Christianity.
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Personally I don't consider a youth offender from 16 and up. I understand what you mean about justice, which is something this world is lacking. I 17 year olds should be charged as adults but not 12 year olds. Also without sources to prove they have been tested on I won't accept that answer. Also as stated the transition from 7 to 8 lasts up until a teenager, because they make real independent choices also with hormones they are subject to fall into peer pressure to be "cool". Everyone, or at least most of us have fallen to peer pressure.
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

I believe there is a reason that the government legally describe youth offender as 12-18 yrs of age who acted with "DISCERNMENT" because they know already what they are doing, proven by professionals and it is tested. They will be inerviewd first and under a due process. My answer for your question on being responsible of their actions is YES. yes they are responsible at the age of 12-18, they know already what is the consequence when they do bad things or good. Second, "behind bars? " like I said they are separated from adult prisons, they have there own prison for juveniles only. Not bars but rooms (that will put them there in a period of time according to what crime they did. ) rehabs and education is already a package. You don't just FREE the children who commits a crime like rape, murder, theft etc. , we are talking JUSTICE here, not the person itself but the crime he did. Lastly, you said "peers are Forcing children or youth to do the crime" that's why if we have the chance to alter the law they wont force their children because they will be aware of this law and more conciouness will rise in the society. So FREEING or bailing youth offenders is not the solution, they will underestimate the Law and keep on repeating crimes because 'they know they will be free anyways' . .They should be imprisoned.
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Thank you for defining youth offender, however my argument involving the transition is still valid. Lets stick with 12 for a bit. Still they are new to the world, In middle school being introduced to new and quite inappropriate and morally wrong ideas. So why blame children directly, when peer pressure is the real culprit? Children are influenced by their peers and do the wrong things. So are they responsible for their actions if they are perhaps FORCED to do crime? No, we shouldn't throw them behind bars.
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Thank you for that answer. First, the definition of a YOUTH OFFENDER is 12-18 yrs of age who acted with DISCERNMENT. I believe during those age they already know what is GOOD and what is BAD. Mostly our crimes today are mostly juveniles who commits rape, murder, theft. etc Second why COLD and DANGEROUS prison? It is a prison ONLY FOR JUVENILES when we say prison it doesn't mean a PUNISHMENT it is to PREVENT, to REHABILITATE and they have EDUCATION inside because they have human rights too, If they are ready then they will face the society. I'll be more specific.. COMMUNICATION, OBEDIENCE AND DISCIPLINE will make them realize for their HEAVY committed crimes. If their crimes are minor then they will undergo a process of rehabilating. Our goal here is to PREVENT the crimes in our society. If they will hear about this law they will be scared to commit crimes. AND MORE PARENTS WILL talk to their children about this and to raise up conciousness to youth. And if the PARENTS will DISCIPLINE their children and more communicating It will save them from commiting HUGE CRIMES. We are talking about JUSTICE or the GRAVITY of the crime not the PERSON itself, what if he killed a LIFE? a soul that has a future too but died because of a innocent child? child know what is good and bad, stealing a money would make them frightened how much more if they KILL? That's why they need a detention to make them understand and if they are given a parole for their new actions which is progressing and they repent they will be set free. There is a person who inspect. There is a certain time-frame according to what crime they did. 1. Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is DILIGENT TO DISCIPLINE him. That's why we DISCIPLINE children because we LOVE them and want them to have a GOOD FUTURE. Communicating and proper way of explaining it to them. 2. Proverbs 23:14 - Withhold not correction from the child: for if you beat him with a rod, he shall not die.
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Are you hearing this? Any parents out there? This guy wants to send your child to prison. We aren't talking about teenagers, we are talking about young children of 7 and 10. Have a heart man, children don't know what they are doing half of the time. At around 7 children have a transition from a "personal memory" where they only remember things involving themselves, to a sense of like and dislike. They are new to this transition, and don't know what it is like to actually hate something. This transition also takes time. This is why teenagers act like they are their own person so they can make their own choices. A child, who has embarked on this journey of memory and life only knows so much. When a child hears a word they don't know, they just say it. Let's take this a step further. Let's say a child steals something. Let's say this is a dollar from another student. The first thing they do when questioned, is to lie. In fact, when a child is being questioned about things like this they don't even know they stole something of value until they are told. So, this child wouldn't even be aware of the consequences of his/her action until he/she is notified it was wrong. Let's pretend this dollar was just on the floor, a foot away from the other student's book bag in the little cubby area where they store their belongings. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think maybe it was just a stray dollar floating around? You should to, Pro, admit that you have taken quarters in classrooms or the office that just floated around. Technically, aren't you stealing too? Now, back to the kid stealing the dollar. Kids that lie when questioned do it MOST when they are from ages 7-10. They realise they can make themselves believe that the dollar is theirs just simply because they made the transition from having a personal memory to a wider range of consciousness. So why punish them if they aren't aware of their actions most of the time? Why shouldwe send them to a COLD and DANGEROUS prison if they don't even know what a dollar is worth? We shouldn't. Have a heart. You want them to learn discipline for their actions? Children learn (especially at young ages of 7-10) more senses of right and wrong from their parents. Sending them to the slammer won't actually make them learn. Actually, they might not even know WHY they're in a prison until told. Sources-http://www.realsimple.com...
Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Spare the rod, and you spoil the child. Discipline is lacking in this world today. They're only looking at the age and emotions and the future of the child. Be futuristic and strict. Stealing a candy is different from killing another people. A juvenile prison is different from adult prison. I believe children today are already rational beings and self conscious people, with technologies are also rising up. Children who are afraid and follows will turn them life upside down, they will strive for the better. They will not rebel if you teach them well, not to punish. PRISON is not only for punishment but also to rehab, to prevent, to teach while he is in the prison which is separated from adults. Be a leader to them don't make them leader to you. Because in the end they will be more effective than just spoiling and giving them what they want is a soft way. In order to make them successful they must learn in a HARD WAY. They will strive that they will not end up like an Adult criminal because they know the feeling of being in prison already.
We regret that acts of kindness are made viral

My opponent raises a few good arguments. Mainly, they said that people who are doing acts of kindness for their own motives will most probably 'drop out' of their efforts when they don't or maybe haven't received much for it. However, I would like to remind my opponent that the motion in today's debate is simply that we regret or that we would prefer that acts of kindness are not made viral. The motion is not about the true intentions of each and every persons' act of kindness. The distinction between the two must be highlighted. By making acts of kindness viral, we are opening up an avenue or an opportunity for people with less-than-desirable motives to chase their own personal goals under the guise of being altruistic. These come in the forms of 'likes', 'followers' etc. We have already discussed (and I think agreed) that this is detrimental to the society. Sure, there are always exceptions and people cannot be generalised. Certainly there are always people on the opposite side of the spectrum. As my opponent has already mentioned, the truly kind people will carry on their actions whether or not they are made viral or they achieve fame. This is all the more reason for us to not have to make viral the organisations, movements or even "on-the-spot" actions that showcase kindness. If we do so, we are not proving anything. The truly kind people will carry on being kind anyway. Most of the charity movements are already much publicised in the newspapers anyway. So when something is made viral, it is probably rarely the case that the viewer's reaction will be "oh, I'm going to emulate that just to be kind" but will most probably be "oh, I want to do that too so that I will appear in someone's video". I don't think that most people would actually need "examples" on social media to help them identify what kindness looks like. It is pretty much inherent in all of us and most if not all school institutions around the world instil these values in children.
We regret that acts of kindness are made viral

I notice that the main argument you say is that the idea of kindness should come from the heart rather than the idea of getting famous, and videos going viral would taint that idea. However, I disagree. People who do things for the purpose of being kind are rarely going to completely change their mindset on something purely because they got something out of it, even if they do it really goes to show they're not that kind of a person in the first place. If people start doing acts of kindness for the idea that they're going to be famous then if they don't succeed the first time then they'll probably give up. The people who give up in the first place are the people who wanted to be famous and weren't even doing true acts of kindness anyway. If anything, acts of kindness usually spread a philosophy about something. For example, a man who built houses for homeless people did it so that he could simply give people homes. Even after he got famous he continued doing it, not because he was famous but because he cared. He didn't spread the idea that kindness equals popularity but instead he revealed how much the homeless were hated by their own communities and how much they needed help. The Free Riders is another example. They never knew they were going to be famous but still almost died trying to prove a point. They're still known today because they showed selflessness and bravery even in the threat of dying. They blurred lines between races purely because it was what they believed. Even if we are setting forth the idea of a treat when you do something good, it still encourages kindness. It shows that you won't be forgotten by history but only if you perform acts of true kindness rather than doing something for your own gain. To say that people as a whole are greedy is generalizing people greatly, some people just get inspired by what others do. The idea of kindness is not being squandered, I think it's just becoming an example of what we should be doing.
We regret that acts of kindness are made viral

There are many acts of kindness which we are capable of in our day-to-day lives. Paying for the next car's toll fees, helping an elderly person cross the road, returning a person's wallet that they accidentally left on the table, are just some examples of acts of chivalry which are already applauded in our societies. We recognise these actions because they are manifestations of good traits to have inside of us like truthfulness and giving without the intention of receiving; values which we try to ingrain into our children. Nowadays however, every action a person does whether good or bad has the potential of ending up on social media and spread to the world. When acts of kindness are made viral, the person's intention of altruism is eroded. What was originally selflessness, is now tainted with pride for being a famous 'kind' person. EVEN IF, there was no intention to be viral, the subsequent momentary fame the person receives programs them into thinking that the highest reward for kindness is to be popular. This sets a precedent, not only on the person but throughout society that the best part about being kind is the potential to be known by thousands or even millions. My opponent may argue that there is nothing wrong with that because we are encouraging these acts and so these acts will increase in magnitude. However, I believe this is not the question we should be asking. What we should be asking is what was the original intent in the first place. The original intention of any good action must always be from an awareness in one's self to do good. It should not come from an ulterior motive for some arbitrary reward. When there is some reward for an action, the goal of the action no longer becomes to do good but to gain the rewards from being good. Fame, followers and popularity. We already live in a world where people are so materialistic. We fear that viral acts of kindness are only swelling this problem.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.Love is an automatic emotional addition for one to other person which is naturally comes from every single person"s mind. 2.When a person"s imaginatively or pleasingly feeling works in his/her emotion toward for another person and it is connected with in a love this is call a romantic love. 3.If love is a natural relationship so it does not include two different people"s sex or they have to occur any of sexual activity. 4.When a person loves his mother romantically, why cannot he love his wife romantically at the same time? 5.A person can loves two girls at once because he could not forget his ex-girlfriend and currently he is in loves with another girl. 6.You can be close with two persons at once but generally not considerable relationship with each person less value with one than the other. 7.When a person feels friendship, blood relationship, sympathy etc. for more than one person at the same time, so why he would not loves be any different? 8.If a person cannot love two parsons at once, so why the polygamous are romantically loves and involves with more than one person at the same time? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Therefore, a person is able to loves more than one people at once. Non-Controversial: premise 1 and 2 is the definitions of love and romantic love, it is non-controversial. Premise 3, 4 are arguments and not changeable. A stronger Premise is #7 which are an argument and a fact. Another argument is #8, but there are many people disagree with this premise because of they are believe in monogamous rule. Controversial: Premise 4, 5 are Controversial because every single person has different opinions. Premise #6 is also an opinion but there are so many people are involve with it and people are arrive it in the public place. Premise 5 is an emotional statement, some people believe the person who loves two people at once that is the person is not a real lover.