BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conformity is inevitable

I will start by addressing my opponents post then continue from there:"To refute my opponent's first argument, social standards only change because of society. The change can only take place if the people adopt it, so the people are conforming and agreeing to the change itself."This is the point, no one is exactly conformed because society is constantly adapting, you cannot show everyone will reach the point of conformed thus it is not inevitable."For example, when the Emancipation Proclamation was placed, everyone ignored it because it was not the social standard at the time. The people didn't agree with it, therefore they didn't adopt it, and the change never occurred."This again supports my view, people still do not believe in freedom for all and thus they are not conformed. This example just shows a history of people opposing change."When conforming to social standards, it depends on what social standards are in consideration. For example, it is a social standard to wear shoes in a restaurant. If someone walks into a restaurant without shoes, they are not welcome, so they have to conform. Society can believe in different things. For example, Democrats and Republicans are all apart of society and believe in different things; the people conform to the general democratic or republican ideas. The elderly are still apart of society and may hold a different standard, but they, as a group, conform and agree to that standard. Everyone is always conforming to something, no matter who they are or what they are conforming to; society does not hold just one standard."You again have not shown that people are constantly conforming and thus you cannot make this claim.now to my side:ALL MY POINTS STILL STAND, none were directly refuted so i push them onto the next phase.At this point you are voting neg, no points stand for pro, and all mine stand, Occam's razor eliminates the assumptions that my opponent is trying to make, because societal standards are always changing we see that it makes no sense to say everyone will achieve the state of conformation, Conformity is not predictable and thus not inevitable, AND in the real world people do not conform.
Conformity is inevitable

To refute my opponent's first argument, social standards only change because of society. The change can only take place if the people adopt it, so the people are conforming and agreeing to the change itself. For example, when the Emancipation Proclamation was placed, everyone ignored it because it was not the social standard at the time. The people didn't agree with it, therefore they didn't adopt it, and the change never occurred.When conforming to social standards, it depends on what social standards are in consideration. For example, it is a social standard to wear shoes in a restaurant. If someone walks into a restaurant without shoes, they are not welcome, so they have to conform. Society can believe in different things. For example, Democrats and Republicans are all apart of society and believe in different things; the people conform to the general democratic or republican ideas. The elderly are still apart of society and may hold a different standard, but they, as a group, conform and agree to that standard. Everyone is always conforming to something, no matter who they are or what they are conforming to; society does not hold just one standard.
Conformity is inevitable

Definitions - - -Conformity - behavior in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards. - This is used to broadly describe thus it is related to the general public (EVERYONE) (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)is - Third person singular present of be. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Inevitable - So frequently experienced or seen that it is completely predictable. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Contentions - - -- - - Social Alignment - - - My First Argument is focused on the definition of conformity, by definition conformity forces my opponent to argue everyone will become aligned with what is socially accepted. This however cannot be achieved, logically society is always changing, infinitely in fact. We see this if we look at the past and compare to the present. In the past we see less acceptance and more violence. Slavery was accepted, People were allowed to duel each other, ect. Thus we see a never ending shift. Now following this Logic, If you stand just shy of matching society you have not conformed to it, thus:X < Ywhere X is you and Y is societal standards, because even if you decide to conform, society will change from what you conformed to. Thus you are always behind societal standards.- - -Real World- - -As of now there are no real world examples of this, the elderly hold their standard and it can be 100% different from what society believes. In order for my opponent to win he must show EVERYONE will conform. Thus he must show that even those who hold strict standards will not change.- - -Occam's Razor- - -Now I know this seems an oddity to put in this debate, however it plays into the Real World examples. In case you are unfimilliar with Occam's Razor (http://math.ucr.edu...) it states "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." So my opponent must prove all points Wrong using the least amount of assumptions, and instead actual fact and logic. You cannot simply assume everyone will conform, but instead you must prove they will.- - -Inevitable- - -By definition my opponent loses here, Inevitable is defined as being frequent, However we don't see everyone conforming, as stated in my real world section. Thus it is not predictable because its not constantly happening.- - -BOP- - -This is perhaps one of the most critical parts of today's debate, In order for my opponent to win he must fulfill the Burden of Proof, If he cannot show you that everyone is conforming then you vote NEGthankyou ;)
Conformity is inevitable

Conformity is inevitable.Conformity - "behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."Inevitable - "sure to happen"http://www.merriam-webster.com...People's brains are wired for cohesiveness. Mammals developed the ability to feel social pains and pleasures, which links our constant well-being to how socially connected we are. Primates have also formed the ability to understand the actions of those around them to strategically interact appropriately and to stay connected. "Whereas connection is about our desire to be social, harmonizing refers to the neural adaptations that allow group beliefs and values to influence our own." (http://www.humanjourney.us...) The way we feel connected is by doing the same things others do to get those social pleasures. Humans' brains have been wired like this from the start, and more recent generations still maintain that instinct, therefore conformity is inevitable.
The Playstation 4 is a superior to the Xbox One in gaming standards

I respect your argument, but I have access to a PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. You have stated, "It is important to note that this is not something new, as it has been an ongoing trend for Microsoft." Although that statement is not true if you are referring to the Xbox 360 version of Xbox Live Gold membership. In the last three months pre Xbox One release there were no Xbox Live exclusive games, so it is more of an "upcoming trend" while PlayStation Plus has been giving free games for the Playstation 3 console and including PlayStation 4 ever since the prescription was offered, while Xbox Live only offered small indie games with small features such as price cuts like I have stated in my previous statement. You also said that the games offered through PS Plus are "Rentals" which they are not. You will always have them on the system. The prescription acts as a kind of license ( but is not one, but has properties as.) You said that even if you don't have Xbox Live you can still play games, but you are incorrect, mainly because as I stated earlier if you don't have Xbox Live you cannot play any games because of account settings not allowing you to sign in without Xbox Live and you need to be on a account to play any games. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have also stated, "It essentially boils down to how the developers utilize Next Gen Consoles, regardless of what spec a console holds, the developers are responsible for using and utilizing a console to its fullest potential." So if they used both consoles "full Potential" they would have more freedom and possibilities on the PlayStation 4, and I will grant that the Xbox One does have kinect capability, it is not preferred for a controller based game. while the Playstation 4 controller has many capabilities than the Xbox One controller. Many game developers have said that the Playstation is a easier console to make platform games for. Sony did this on purpose as they said at their E3 presentation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this great debate and I hope that you have enjoyed it as much as I. Once again thank you Relativist, for accepting this hot topic debate.
The Playstation 4 is a superior to the Xbox One in gaming standards

I would like to begin this debate by stating that as this generation of gamers are advancing, so are the consoles. Yes, they are becoming more like computers but still have that gaming feel that makes people prefer a console. Both of the new platforms for both consoles are superior to there earlier relatives in the gaming tree. Keeping it between the new generation consoles the PlayStation 4 has a 8-core Jaguar processor as the Xbox One does as well, yet the PlayStation 4 runs DDR5 and the Xbox One runs DDR3. As game developers continue there advances in game graphics and different methods to play the DDR5 will allow them to advance while the older DDR3 will be not preferred to base games on. Another thing that the consoles have in common is online membership. As PlayStation Plus is not required for single player games, Xbox Live is needed just to sign in and play even single player games that have no online function. Although, if you buy PlayStation Plus you get exclusive offers, free monthly games and price reductions on many things in the PlayStation store, while the Xbox Live service only offers price cuts once in a while. So far in the releases of the consoles the PlayStation has had more exclusives and announced more exclusives than their opponent, the Xbox One. Sources: Wikipedia. org Game Informer IGN
The Playstation 4 is a superior to the Xbox One in gaming standards

I accept, I will be arguing that Xbox One is superior to Playstation 4 on gaming standards. Since the resolution is loosely defined, here are the definitions and explanations. Gaming(1) "Gaming is the running of specialized applications known as electronic games, especially on machines designed for such programs and, in a more recent trend, using personal computers on the Internet in which case the activity is known as online gaming" Standard(2) " a level of quality, achievement, etc., that is considered acceptable or desirable" Since consoles are tending to be more like PCs, it is justifiable that I argue beyond what the definition dictates, as it is only confined to 'electronic games'. Categories that should be taken into consideration (besides electronic games) are Specs, Applications and Services offered by both companies. I will argue how Xbox one is superior in each category. Without further a due, I invite Pro to present his case. Sources (1)http://whatis.techtarget.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Obesety in adolecents is the fault of the parents.

I know that a 10 year old knows healthy habits because I received education on how to eat my fruits and veggies when I was in the first grade. in public school. So yes, a ten year old would at least know what healthy habits are. So, that child has that idea to not to eat a fatty treat. Plus, Beth Turner from parents magazine says, "Exposure to billions of dollars worth of food advertising and marketing may play a key role in the epidemic of childhood obesity, the report concludes." How does what comes on the TV have anything to do with a parent. And yes the parent can shut off the TV, but when it comes to eating, children don't always do what their parents say. You your self even said, "A child won't make his own decision to suddenly change his lifestyle so young." So, how do you expect a parent, who is a different body, fix the body of a child. The child would just sit there and be unmotivated to do anything. And every parent can threaten and scream, but if the child doesn't do what they say, or do anything to not be obese, how is that the parents' fault. Works Cited (1) Turner, Beth. "Fat Kids: What's Really to Blame?" Parents Magazine. Meredith Corporation, 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
Obesety in adolecents is the fault of the parents.

I thank you for voicing your opinion. Though, I must completely disagree. " The child can take matters into their own hands and start exercising." "The child has the power to take matters in their own hands, and the parents cannot be blamed." This is a lie. Studies show that obesity in adolescence start at ages 9-12. I don"t think a ten year old will a. really understand health habits. These habits come from parents. And b. wants to eat healthy and exercise every day. Children are not as prone to do these things without parental guidance. If the parents don"t take charge and make their kids have a healthy lifestyle, they will continue to gain weight causing obesity. A child won"t make his own decision to suddenly change his lifestyle so young. Most all animals have evolved so that the offspring follow their parent"s behavior. Humans are the same way. Unless a parent changes his or her ways, the child will not. Also, if parents buy junk food, their children will eat it. It is unlikely that a child will ignore food they find so irresistible.
Obesety in adolecents is the fault of the parents.

An adolescent most likely goes to school. Somewhere in their education, k-12, they learned about how to eat right. Yes, the parent buys and makes the food, but even I didn't eat a lot of a greasy dish that was served to me. The adolescent could also stand up and ask the parent(s) to buy more healthy meals. The child can take matters into their own hands and start exercising, which will then get the attention of the parents, and they will most likely support their child. The child has the power to take matters in their own hands, and the parents can not be blamed.
United States should switch to a Universal Healthcare System

There are many reasons for the United States to move to a single-payer Universal healthcare system. Among these reasons are things like the fact that the United States is ranked 37th in the world for healthcare. Another one of these reasons is that the average lifespan of an American is shorter than that of almost every country with social healthcare. Yet another reason is that everybody should have access to healthcare, but in the United States only a minority of people have regular, affordable access to healthcare. I would be interested to see what possible reasons anybody could come up with for not having a social healthcare system.
Creation v.s. Evolution

Who/where did the Big Bang Theory originate? I know it's a "theory" because per the Scientific Method, a hypothesis is made first, then experimentation. What experimentation was done to, for lack of a better term, come up with that conclusion? Despite the differences in beliefs, is it valid to say there seems to be a coincidence with the "Big Bang" and "In the beginning"? I'm not going to say the commonly used analogy of "let there be light" because that's incorrect in comparison to say the least. As for the "letuv" you're saying slight climate changes (over time) caused slight changes in each proceeding generation of offspring. Evolution/evolving requires mutation correct? Doesn't the body of said creature or their DNA have to be exposed to sufficient radiation? Correct me if I'm wrong but microevolution are slight changes to adapt to your environment, which would correlate with said climate change. But what about macroevolution? That's evolution on a large scale, i.e. fish forming limbs, and then skin instead of scales, etc. I don't see how climate change causes a drastic change like that. Also, plenty of food? If all matter was created, how is it possible for molecules to randomly form into a food source that can sustain a living being? Natural Selection isn't random. How does that correlate with a seemingly random universe that exploded out of nothing? If Natural Selection isn't random, then what rules or should I say dictates what happens to whom? I'm familiar with "survival of the fittest", but I feel this question is in conjunction with what decides if a certain species evolves or not. Furthermore, we all know matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet where did all this matter come from? With that said, how can life, something we cannot create in a lab come from non-life? Life is a mystery, I'm sure we can agree on that. But it seems the term "life" is more than physical. Take reproduction for instance. We can't create it, yet somehow, life is given or should I say emerges in a fetus. Heart beat, brain activity, kicking; all this from an egg we deem to "not be alive". I know I may appear ignorant of these things and are asking a lot of questions about things that seem vague to me. Shalom.
Creation v.s. Evolution

I was brought up Christian but became an atheist so I have read a lot of the Bible and I have also read up on this stuff The big bang is the theory that in the beginning, a huge explosion caused the universe to be created. Yes, we believe the universe is billions of years old. it's a common misassumption that natural selection is an accident, however, what we believe is hard to explain. Let's make an example, you have the letuv, a fake animal, it is in a hot climate with plenty of food, it mainly lives in trees. Slowly, the climate starts to get colder, as the letuv reproduces, slight changes are made, those who don't change die, those who do change, go on to change more. This goes on until the letuv is a completely new species.
Creation v.s. Evolution

To begin, I wasn't 100% sure what to name this "Topic" nor the "Category". I'm new to Debate.org; found this as I was looking to read on debates concerning mostly religion (so I guess I chose the correct category haha). To begin: I was brought up Jewish, believing in the Creationist POV, and as of now, that's where I stand. I've read on and been told by several people what the Atheistic approach is and what the basic principal of Evolution is. But I feel like I'm lacking in information. I'm a seeker of knowledge, even if it collides with my current beliefs. I understand that science is the main tool that Atheists use to provide date/evidence for their POV. I love science and have always been fascinated with the subject, but more often than not, talking to Theists about science usually results and stems toward their "belief" as the main where, when, why and how. So you can see how I get nowhere. I don't make friends easily either, which seems to be in direct correlation to my doubts about the universe. To get with it, I know, or at least I think I know, that the most common idea of Evolution stems from the Big Bang Theory. That the universe blew up into existence from nothing? That the universe is millions if not billions of years old. So to get to my first point, how? How can something randomly happen from nothing and then over the course of years, and years, slowly evolve by "random chance" and Natural Selection into what we see today? That in itself is hard to comprehend when compared to a Theist's POV that a Creator made everything. Now to be fair, comprehending a being that's omnipotent who always existed and created everything with nothing but His words, is no easier to comprehend. But I guess because of my upbringing, to me it's more rational. But that's my opinion. I'm not saying Atheists are irrational, it's just differences in beliefs. Is there anyone who wishes to enlighten me on this? Please, I'd prefer detailed in depth enlightenment over kindergarten stuff as I've been told by some. I'll present my points as we go on so as to learn what the opposing argument is. I feel to make a debate worth discussion, one has to understand what his/her "opponent" stands on. Shalom. P.S. I apologize if my thoughts are not quite reformed. It's been years since I've debated with anyone, and I miss it.
We should leave Afghanistan Immediately

I. Preface:Thanks Pro for instigating this open debate. I would like to apologise as I haven't has time this past few days to research the issue, I will provide a brief argument in this round and will fill out some more in the next.The resolution has set the Burden of Proof in Pro, but I will offer my own case for remaining in Afghanistan, or at least against an immediate withdrawal of troops from the country.II. AfghanistanThe reasons for remaining in Afghanistan extend a long way beyond the US's perceived knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks and to serve justice for said attacks. The country as it stands now is economical, but currently unstable. C1. Leaving Afghanistan now would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to Taliban insurgencyC2. US forces currently play an important role in training & maintaining the Afghan security forcesAs it stands, many commanders fear a large portion of huge Afghan security forces will desert if the US forces withdrew. Leaving the state in an increasingly vulnerable state. While the Taliban in the country have been largely pushed back, numerous other groups would readily seek to take power if given the opportunity. [1]C3. Lessons learned from IraqOur complete withdrawal from Iraq is pretty clear evidence of what is likely to occur in Afghanistan if we left now. Afghanistan is most assuredly in an even more unstable situation than Iraq was when troops were withdrawn. What we see now in Iraq are a steady increase in sectarian violence, with car bombings, domestic attacks increasing with militant Islamic groups operating with increased impunity.Conclusion.I again apologise for this short round, I will have much more time next week so will offer cogent rounds then. Back to Pro! III. References: 1. http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org...
Should abortion really be allowed in America

So, the unwanted child should be given to a different family member that still doesn't want it? What if there is no other family to give it to? Why shouldn't any responsibility be given to the father of the child? What about the burden on society? Unwanted children are unwanted whether or not they are being cared for by the state or by a parent. Forcing a woman to have a baby that she does not want is damaging to all parties involved, whether the state, the mother, the father, or another relative is taking care of it. It is possible that in this world some babies are not meant to be born, just like some people are not meant to live. Regarding rape, can you really say it is the mothers child? Genetically yes, but if only going by genetics then adopted children's parents are not really their parents and never will be because they cannot force a genetic relation to a child. A forced baby is something the mother doesn't want, so can there be any emotional ownership towards the child from the mother? (to be the "mother's child", that expresses ownership) And again, what about in cases in which the mother's life is at risk?