BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Charity is bad for the population problem

My opponent refuses to acknoledge my argument, instead, he repeats the same factually unsound rebutal. Let me reestablish the concept of the human population."The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that: the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then perhaps declining in the waning years of this century." (1) 1. The above quote is natures course.2. The above quote REQUIRES that the human population reach climax before declining. 3. My opponent does not want the population to reach climax, he wants it to decline right away. 4 Ergo, my opponent does not want nature to take its course.5. "I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts" So, at the same time, my opponent thinks we should let nature take its course. ***Numbers 4 and 5 are the contradiction. A contradiction is a self-refutation.***1. My opponent thinks that charity is bad for the population problem2. "A problem is an obstacle, impediment, difficulty or challenge, or any situation that invites resolution"(2)3. The population will naturally decline eventually, so the population is not an obstacle, impediment, difficulty, challenge, and does not invite a resolution from Humans. 4. Ergo, there is NO population "problem"5. Charity cannot be bad for the population problem if the population is not a problemResolution Negated. 1. Something is good for another thing when it strengthens, facilitates and supports it.2. The goal of a population is to reach stabilization. 3. An increase in people must be achieved FIRST before reaching stabilization in accordance with population dynamics.4. Charity helps increase the number of living people, hence reaching the goal faster. 5. Charity strengthens, facilitates, and supports the human population.6. Charity is good for the population. Resolution Negated ...Again Note that I took 2 different approaches to negating the resolution. My opponent would have to disprove BOTH to win the argument because refuting only one leaves the other standing. Sources 1. http://users.rcn.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Charity is bad for the population problem

To answer your points 1.I maintain there is no contradiction, I merely explain that we needn't reach the 9.3 billion mark you stated as the earths carrying capacity. "reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then" 2.Con, you mention my wants in Round 2 and I was referring to this in my argument "My opponent has made it clear that he does not want the human population to take its natural course and reach climax" My argument is that nature is being knocked back in its effort to control the increase, not decrease the population. The human race need to step in to help via stopping to use charity in the way it is today. 3.The population could climax today if there was some unforeseen environmental disaster. My call is to stop charity to slow the increase so we might not ever need to get to the climax that Con refers to in Round 1. The size of the population directly results in •The depletion and dispersal of natural resources •Increasing pollution •Extinction of plant and animal species •Global warming This planet cannot continuously sustain all the humans that currently reside on it. All these people are continuously consuming resources and exuding pollution and in order to be completely sufficient there would need to be under 2 billion inhabitants. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Point: There is a population problem. As Con conceded in round 1, charity helps to extend this population problem via enabling people that might otherwise have died to live thus increasing the amount of people on the planet and extending the population problem "If anything, charity, and allowing more people to live will hasten our global gravitation to human population stabilization. It will accomplish this by making us reach the Earth's carrying capacity faster. " Point: Charity is detrimental to the population problem.
Charity is bad for the population problem

1. "There is no contradiction from round 1 to 2. In 1 I say that charity is affecting natures efforts to control population and in 2 I say charity is speeding up population growth the same argument from different sides.The human population will climax, of course but charity will make that climax higher and quicker and will have detrimental affects on the planet."Simply stating that there is no contradiction does not actually conclude that there is no contradiction. I think I did a good job of explaining why a contradiction exists in the last round, so I extend that argument to the 3rd. 2. "I do not want a natural course to climax, rather I feel we need to act now in order to slow the growth, investing funds that keep people alive into making other people's lives better."Pro's wants are irrelevant. He will need to explain why not letting nature take its course would be a good thing......which AGAIN, he said would be a bad thing in round one. "feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts"3. "There is no need to wait for mass starvation and death, it can all start right now. Rather embrace that things will get tough and work towards the greater good now. "My opponent conceded that climax of population and hence, mass starvation is inevitable. So his call for action now by removing charity, will not stop the population increase. I would like to remind Pro of his resolution "charity is bad for the population problem". He has to prove HOW charity is bad for the population "problem" AND prove that the population is a problem. He has addressed neither burden. His point here of quickening the pace, and embracing the inevitable by allowing more people to die is irrelevant to the resolution. This does not explain why charity is BAD for the population problem.In fact, I even previously proved that charity is GOOD for the population by helping us reach population climax faster.You cannot skip over climax and force decline like my opponent asserts.
Charity is bad for the population problem

There is no contradiction from round 1 to 2. In 1 I say that charity is affecting natures efforts to control population and in 2 I say charity is speeding up population growth the same argument from different sides. The human population will climax, of course but charity will make that climax higher and quicker and will have detrimental affects on the planet. I do not want a natural course to climax, rather I feel we need to act now in order to slow the growth, investing funds that keep people alive into making other people's lives better. There is no need to wait for mass starvation and death, it can all start right now. Rather embrace that things will get tough and work towards the greater good now. There is a chance we will buy time and come up with answers to our problems if we do but if we allow the tipping point to come sooner, we have no chance at all. At the moment we are still in control of our own destiny, lets keep it that way. Acting tough is the way forward and changing the way charity is provided currently can be the first of many tough decisions that will be needed to right whats wrong.
Charity is bad for the population problem

my opponent has contradicted himself. between round 1 and round 2. Round 1: " feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts"Round 2: "Taking charity as it stands today out of the equation will slow the rate of population growth so we may never reach the 9.3 billion mark"The notion of preventing the human population's natural climax is contradictory to his previous point of letting nature take its course. First Pro states that we must not stifle nature, then the argument he provides directly stifles the will of nature. If we do not peak, we will not declineMy opponent has made it clear that he does not want the human population to take its natural course and reach climax. He proceeds to ask me if I would prefer an 8.5 billion population to a 9.3. My answer is, I prefer a 6 billion population to a 9.3. When the human population peaks and the Earth does not have enough resources to accommodate so many people, there will be mass starvation and a period of sharply increased deaths. That will force the human population into decline. Natural decline"The human race has been trying to prevent a decline in population for time immemorial but have just gotten much better at it over the past 200 years"No Source. Why would we deliberately let children and adults suffer to regain an 8.3 billion population, which is, as you implied, still above the Earth's carrying capacity? Giving charity will not affect natures course. We WILL reach the population and climax, and eventually we WILL decline as I explained in the last round. The addition of charity is a moral virtue, and its removal:a. WILL NOT stop the eventual climax in population (that will happen no matter what) b. WILL NOT prevent population decline (that too will happen no matter what) Therefore Charity is not bad for the population "problem".
Charity is bad for the population problem

Thanks for taking up the challenge 000ike C1. Charity does not interfere with the inevitable decline in the human population I agree that charity will aid in increasing the worlds population to 9.3 billion or "carrying capacity" but I believe that we have already passed a sustainable carrying capacity and so more drastic measures are in order. You cant look at individual environmental factors in isolation which I will discuss further in response to C2. Taking charity as it stands today out of the equation will slow the rate of population growth so we may never reach the 9.3 billion mark. We may use up all our resources to sustain these people before we get to that mark and would you not prefer to have 8.5 billion people in trouble rather than 9.3? Point: Charity is helping to overburden the earth in a shorter time frame than if it wasn't around C2. There is no such thing as a population "problem" The human race has been trying to prevent a decline in population for time immemorial but have just gotten much better at it over the past 200 years. Why then, should we not try to prevent the growth in population in a direct attempt to stem the flow? As mentioned earlier, attempting to let things carry on as is will merely compound the issues we will inevitably experience so we should take action now. Natural resources aren't easily replaced in the short term so we have to take care of what we have now. The population problem is at the heart of all this but tackling environmental, resource and the standard people issues like contraception and contraceptive education is not enough. We are hamstrung by our humanitarian nature in that it forces us to look after those in need. We should forget about those that cant fend for themselves for the greater good of the planet and the human race. The money saved in the current aid structures could be used in research on alternate fuel, alternate food source/agriculture or education on family planning or indeed contraception itself. We could also aid people that are able to sustain themselves to make the bottom line of living standards better rather than wasting precious resource on keeping people barely alive. Point: There is a population problem and it is at the root of all out environmental issues.
Charity is bad for the population problem

C1. Charity does not interfere with the inevitable decline in the human population "I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts" A purely natural control of population works under birth and death. Unless people are not dying (which is impossible), the population will always behave according to the tendencies of population dynamics. Meaning: There will be a sharp increase and peak in population, a decline, and a stabilization. If anything, charity, and allowing more people to live will hasten our global gravitation to human population stabilization. It will accomplish this by making us reach the Earth's carrying capacity faster. Point: Charity is not bad for our population, rather, it assists our population. C2. There is no such thing as a population "problem" I am assuming that my opponent views the human race's imminent over-population as something that is a problem and should be prevented. This is logically unsound. Every animal population, including us humans, must go through a. population increase b. population decline and c. population stabilization. The issues with living conditions that may arise due to population exponential growth, the scarcity of food and water, will be the driving force returning the human population to a period of decline due to increased deaths (of starvation and lack of resources). The concern (due to misconceptions) that many have taken when thinking about the future of the human global population is unnecessary. We may think of ways to counter the future depletion of resources, but trying to prevent natural population growth is not the answer. Point: Charity cannot be bad for the population problem, if the population is not a problem to begin with. "The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that: the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then perhaps declining in the waning years of this century. " (1) Sources 1. . http://users.rcn.com...
Charity is bad for the population problem

How many people have been saved over the past 30 years from the billions of $s used in aid? Chinas 1 child policy has spared the earth of 400 million people and while I am not convinced the aid amount is that large, its not totally inconceivable and it will surely reach that figure in the near future. In my eyes, the world is not sustainable in a scenario where human rights are put before the health of the human race or indeed our planet as a whole. I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts and it can only end in catastrophe.
The Last of Us is WAY TOO overrated!!! SERIOUSLY! Like WTF!

Welcome to Debate.org, don't use "wtf" and other abbreviations like that. "Naughty Dog has proven itself again as one of the most accomplished development teams in the world. With The Last of Us they have given us a consistent and interesting world that is supported by practically all of its game mechanics. From the rich complex combat system to the sublime sound design, this game immerses the player in one of the most visceral plots in this generation. Maybe the AI could have been better, but, overall, this game proves how far the craftsmanship of making video games has come." Is a Review for " The Last of Us " which simply sums up the reason why the game has been voted 10/10. Every Game has Flaws no game is ever fully perfect yet if it is still a great game it does deserve a 10/10. Also Debate.org is not just about arguing you need to state facts that back up your statements. Quote: http://www.metacritic.com...
The Last of Us is WAY TOO overrated!!! SERIOUSLY! Like WTF!

"10 out of 10 - Game of the Year" - IGN, Good Game (Australian TV Gaming Show) and almost everyone in the universe of gaming. Why? Why is this game GOTY (Game of the Year)? Why is it 10 out of 10 when there is flaws that ruin the experience? WHY IS IT SO POPULAR WHEN ALL IT IS IS THE WALKING DEAD WITH A WORSE STORY AND GAMEPLAY THAT IS "SURVIVAL" BASED!? I have no idea why the heck people say that it is perfect. I get it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when everyone says this game is perfect? The best game we have seen in years? Wtf is coming out of peoples mouths? Sure, this game was good, it was fun, atmospheric and gorgeous looking on the Ps3. But when there is flaws that disturb what it was trying to do, it does NOT deserve a 10 out of 10. Even games considered the best of all time like Ocarina of Time still have it's flaws. It's so stupid! Here today, I just feel like releasing my anger and arguing about this with someone else. So, come at me bro (btw I am a noob at this, first time, plz dont come at meh!)
The Last of Us is WAY TOO overrated!!! SERIOUSLY! Like WTF!

I understand that the ending was for marketing for the sequel, but that's not an excuse, because I wasn't satisfied enough. If they did the ending that I said or something similar, it would've made me more satisfied and wanting more. If they improved the ending, the game would easily go up to a 9. Remember how Halo 2's ending was a bit disappointing (at least from I heard, haven't actually played it myself since I have no xbox :(), since it was built up for Halo 3? Where they left it to a cliffhanger? Everyone was pretty disappointed and the game received 9.5 and 9 from all reviewers, but what is the difference with The Last of Us receiving a 10? Were people really satisfied with the ending, again leaving it to a cliffhanger? " You said you weren't satisfied enough that would be your own opinion, also you said Halo 2's ending was a bit disappointing, I never played Halo 2 as well but I did play Halo 3 and it was one of the best games I've played for a while. Cliffhangers depend on what game it is, it depends on how the developers spin the story to make you want more. I don't play ps3/ps4 I am an xbox player myself but most games are the same if left to a cliffhanger. The Last of Us just must of had such an exciting ending it made people rate it 10/10 and in your opinion just left it to 8.5/10. Games are becoming more advanced, Halo 2 wouldn't get 9.5/10 these days if the graphics weren't changed it just depends on what you see.
The Last of Us is WAY TOO overrated!!! SERIOUSLY! Like WTF!

Sorry, it was like 11 o'clock, I was way too tired to continue! Now that I am back though...I understand that the ending was for marketing for the sequel, but thats not an excuse, because I wasn't satisfied enough. If they did the ending that I said or something similar, it would've made me more satisfied and wanting more. If they improved the ending, the game would easily go up to a 9. Remember how Halo 2's ending was a bit disappointing (at least from I heard, haven't actually played it myself since I have no xbox :(), since it was built up for Halo 3? Where they left it to a cliffhanger? Everyone was pretty disappointed and the game received 9.5 and 9 from all reviewers, but what is the difference with The Last of Us receiving a 10? Were people really satisfied with the ending, again leaving it to a cliffhanger? Look at the ending of The Walking Dead (Telltale Games) (Also spoilers for the ending, if you wanna skip it just skip this paragraph. Made it just so you can skip just in case ;D) The whole reason of the last episode was to save Clementine from that person, and then when Lee finally dies, we see Clementine being safe, walking in a field of wheat. And then, leaving that cliffhanger where there is those two figures. That was so masterful, the ending was satisfying and had a cliffhanger. The Last of Us though, left me feeling like I needed more. Some could argue that is a good thing, but when I payed a game which was $80 in Australia, I expect a satisfying ending, not one that makes me wanna spend another $80 for the sequel because I didn't get a good enough ending. I mean, I earned that money, I worked my arse off for it, and this is how I am rewarded? I could've gone out there, gotten Left 4 Dead and made myself a Role Play video with a few friends and had gotten my moneys worth. And THAT GAME IS $10 BUCKS ON STEAM ($20 for number two). Do you see what i mean?The Mass Effect 3 ending was so bad too (spoilers, skip the paragraph if you want no spoilers), how none of your actions changed anything other than a few colours. Now I wouldn't mind if the game was $20 (Like The Walking Dead), but that was again $80, a AAA and I didn't get my moneys worth.Now did the question is, did the ending ruin the game for me? Well, sort of. Because the game was very fun and addictive, atmesphere was great, but the ending slightly ruined it for me, since this game is focused on the story to make you fall in love with it.
The Last of Us is WAY TOO overrated!!! SERIOUSLY! Like WTF!

Some people take days to reply so don't worry, the game to someone new to it something like Left 4 Dead or other types of Zombie Games yet it is more tactical and I see that you believe that you get to much equipment and stuff like that. Your statements are valid and that maybe because the producers of the game wanted the something different. Instead of Gun + You = Zombie Killer, they engineered more of a story to it to try make you feel for the characters and become one with them. You should make a review on websites showing this to other people but do not act they way you did in your opening statement. When I read your opening statement I believed you were just some random gamer who doesn't know any vocabulary, now that you have posted in Round 2 I know that I was wrong and you have a lot of valid points. I myself am not a big RPG and Games of those sorts with Zombies, I play Call of Duty and other First Person Shooters. You said that they should of made the game longer, maybe the producers was just looking to produce something which could lead on from it. Short Game = More hype over Sequel. Yes it is your own opinion but you could always show that it may not be a 10 it could be an 8.5 as you said. Others could of missed those fatal flaws and just stuck to what they saw and enjoyed the game as a whole. The story that you described was to build suspense for the ending and then they didn't let it drop. It is to generate more marketing for number two.
Free will is an illusion

You are right, Scientific proof won't help either of us. However, You have made a very bold proclamation, "Free will is an illusion", In my mind, If you want people to take that seriously, You must put something behind it. By admitting that you cannot, I believe that settles a lot of what we were meant to be debating. This is just a very loose and meaningless ploy to rid yourself of the responsibility of your actions.
Free will is an illusion

I'm not sure there is scientific proof that will make either of our cases. I am appealing to logic. Having free will suggests that at any given fork in the road, You have the agency to decide which path to take. This is just an illusion. Whatever thoughts, Knowledge, Or experiences you use to make your decision arose in your consciousness through no choice of your own. Whether you attribute your development to nature, Nurture, Or some combination, Neither of those forces are related to volition.
Free will is an illusion

One cannot control what it is that they want - they cannot dictate their own impulses and tendencies. In no way is it possible to be the author of one's own conscious desires. “How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? ” - Sam Harris "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. " - Arthur Schopenhauer