BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

No need to apologize, my last paragraph was mostly rhetorical. As for your contention, that behavior is the effect solely of external factors (and reinforcement or lack of the same), I find it, as before, not complete. To clarify: I agree that the brain is an input-output machine, but I disagree on the source of inputs; you say it's only external, I say that it's both internal and external. I posit that if your position were true then: A) no innate motives would exist, as something innate doesn't need previous experience; B) human language, and especially the process of learning a language, would be unexplainable in scientific terms. The existence of innate motives was postulated in 1959 (and has since replaced the behaviorist concept of drives) in order to explain some behaviors that occur without external stimulation, such as exploration, play,etc. (1). More than 1.000 articles have been written on the subject since, and their existence is not generally in doubt. To make examples in the animal kingdom: rhesus monkeys solve puzzles even if there is no reward associated (2) and zebra finches sing even if raised in isolation (3). I think that shows that the premise that all behavior is due to external cues is false. What about human language? to cite Noam Chomsky: "As far as acquisition of language is concerned, it seems clear that reinforcement, casual observation, and natural inquisitiveness (coupled with a strong tendency to imitate) are important factors, as is the remarkable capacity of the child to generalize, hypothesize, and "process information" in a variety of very special and apparently highly complex ways which we cannot yet describe or begin to understand, and which may be largely innate, or may develop through some sort of learning or through maturation of the nervous system. The manner in which such factors operate and interact in language acquisition is completely unknown. It is clear that what is necessary in such a case is research, not dogmatic and perfectly arbitrary claims, based on analogies to that small part of the experimental literature in which one happens to be interested." (4) And a stringent definition of what is an input and what qualifies as reinforcement in the matter of learning a language was never achieved, making the study of languages difficult at least under your worldview. Sources 1) http://www.idspublishing.com... 2) http://psycnet.apa.org... 3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4) http://www.chomsky.info... (this is a review of Skinner's book "Verbal Behavior", in which Skinner tried to push the point you're making, it's quite long and technical so don't feel obliged to read all of it)
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

I do apologize because you seem to have misunderstood my thinking on the human brain through no fault of your own but through my own negligence. My theory is not that any given brain will react the same given the same set of circumstances but that a brain will react according to the sum of its input, or what is has learned through its environment. A person is given to a set of behaviors, selfishness, generosity, self-seclusion, due to what the brain has learned throughout its life. Personal traits are established through repeated exposure to inputs that would breed this behavior in the many connections of the brain. As to your query about prisons. A person whose experiences has led them to become a danger to society should be imprisoned for the common good but it not through any fault of their own that they behave in a destructive manner. You do not blame a cog in a machine for rotating one way and not another, though this is a slightly oversimplified version of human behavior. As to why people score differently on tests their are many other factors that influence their performance besides the lesson. One child may have an unstable household another may have no family to speak of and thus has no pressure, outside of school, to perform well. One child might even have a professor for a parent who coaches them and obsesses over their grades. Each student is taught and learns different values and thus are different people.
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

Hello and well met, Your position in this debate is consistent with the behaviorist theory of personality (i. e. that human thought processes are shaped exclusively by external causes) and from this you deduce that gratitude or blame are illogical. I will assume for this debate that logical is intended as a synonym for reasonable or sensible. I posit that your explanation for human actions is not complete: if all that matters is input (or situation) we could not predict how a person will behave unless we knew all the external factors at play, and yet people tend to act in consistent ways (that are usually described by adjectives given to the person: selfish, generous, introvert, etc.). This is what is known as the Person-Situation debate (1). The most common position these days in psychology is that both sides are right: the behavior of a person is guided by personal traits and situation (or external input) (2) (3). I'll add that in your theory there is no space for free will and personal responsibility: what is the use of prisons then, if a crime is just the inevitable output of impersonal circumstances? And why do people score differently on tests, if they followed the same lessons? Sources 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://cdp.sagepub.com... 3) http://people.psych.cornell.edu...
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

The concept of blame and of it's opposite, gratitude, are illogical concepts due to the fact that all humans are reflections of their environment. The human brain is a simple input-output machine. Without input there cannot be output. The concept of "input" is rather vague but we can classify by saying that it is a person's "environment" or what they hear, smell, see, taste, and process. To change output you must simply change input or, in this case, environment. If a human's output in any situation is simply their environment speaking through them then the concept of blame, though psychologically necessary to blow off steam, and thus its opposite are illogical.
Russia Shouldn't Be Blamed for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

My opponent is right about one thing in his statement, and it is that I did not not site my sources. Therefore, here they are: For Colonel Igor Strelkov: http://www.politifact.com... For UN Charter: http://www.un.org... So, on to rebutting my opponents argument. I will do this by rebutting his argument. His information is flawed and my information presented was misinterpreted by my opponent. Plus there is the fact that the investigation is still going on. Rebuttal to Opponent When you look at my opponents source, he tells me that t is impossible to shoot down a passenger aircraft at 30,000 ft. (10 Km) with the Buk missile system when in reality, the Buk missile system has a max altitude of about 3 times that of a passenger aircraft, maxing out at a insane 95,000 ft. (29 km)(According to my opponents source. Other sources say that it is only about 70,000 ft.). So, in reality, my opponent handed me the specs that supported my case. He also gave measurements as to the what is called detection radius (His case of Kursk was too far). He was right, however I had never said that it was fired from Kursk, only deployed from it. My opponent can look at my previous argument and in the first paragraph I said and I quote, "The truth is, the missile fired at the plane from a Russian Buk Launcher FROM Kursk, Russia." I did not have enough information at that time to confirm the true launch site, only that the Launcher had been deployed from there. I apologize to my opponent for not making that clear in my earlier argument. I can now say that based on an eyewitness report, as well as video surveillance, can prove that the missile was in fact fired from the town of Chervonyi Zhovten in Ukraine. Here is the link to the spotting of the launcher that was CONFIRMED to be responsible for the downing of Malaysia Flight 17. Only 30 km within the detection range, well within my opponents specs, the launcher then fired with aim to shoot down an AN-26. The AN-26 in question was supposedly carrying supplies to the Ukrainian front. Which brings up a good question , if Ukraine really was the one who shot the missile, why aim for your own guys? Unless my opponent and I wanted to launch an investigation over a conspiracy of friendly fire to start this whole blame incident, I would say logic rules out the possibility that Ukraine was aiming for their own guys. In recent news, Bellingcat was not the only one to blame the Russians in May of 2016. The Dutch-Australian Task Force assigned to the investigation of the crash called for the UN to have a security meeting due to the fact that there WAS enough data. Russia immediately denied the case being that Russia itself was on the Security Committee. If you had nothing to hide, why not let an investigation take place. Cites: Ukraine Cargo Plane, launch location, and Task Force Investigation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Russia Shouldn't Be Blamed for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements I believe there is not enough evidence to prove that Russia or Russian backed rebels were to blame for the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. It would not be wrong to suggest that NATO and the US (Who have a history of doing so) would blame Russia, directly or indirectly, for the downing of the flight in order to gain more support and more criticism on Russia's controversial role in Ukraine. The plane was shot down at the exact border between Ukrainian controlled territory and rebel controlled regions. The weapon used was a BUK missile system which is made and exported by Russia. What the West decides to overlook is that while the separatist allegedly have this system provided by Russian forces, Ukraine officially has this system previously purchased in past arms deals with Russia. The exact location of the downing of the plane could be from either sides without true proof to have the United States and Western allies prove that the downing was caused by Russian forces participating, or funding rebels in Eastern Ukraine.
Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

Hello, and thank you for continuing to read this debate I would like to refute my opponent's statements. Rebuttal 1:Larz is an un-biased judge that just assigned a topic he would like to see debated.Rebuttal 2:You broke the acceptance rule. You added a definition. Conduct goes to me.Case 1: The downsides to testing just for safetyIf the governments test just for safety, then they have no idea if the drugs work. This puts millions upon millions of people at risk. Let's say that the a new heart pill is being released that is supposed to stop the heart attack. The FDA or the drug administration in another country tests the drug for safety and it passes, so it is released to the public. Doctors start prescribing it to his patients who have heart problems and have a history or risk for having heart attacks. The people actually have heart attacks, and the first couple million people take it and it doesn't work. They explain it off as a defective pill, and they pull it. Now, millions of people are dead, and the governments are being sued. This drives the nation in debt.If the pills don't work, then why even make medicine? For all you know, you could be taking a pill that doesn't work for a stroke or cancer! Case 2: Why test for bothHere you may see how the FDA approves drugs. (1) If you look at all the phases, the FDA focuses more on than safety. This must mean effectiveness is important. If you test for both, you make sure the drugs are both safe and effective for your family. This makes sure you aren't taking a placebo for an illness and thinking it's actually medicine. When we test for both, we make sure that the drug is not only safe, but is effective, and will actually work if needed.When we test for only safety, we only know if it's safe. We have no idea if it is going to work!As any person can see, it is more logical to test for both. Thank you for your time!1. http://www.fda.gov...
Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

I accept, but would like to note two things before we continue:1. I would like to register a formal objection to this topic. CDB and I failed to agree on any topic, and after a lengthy discussion turned to Larz to provide a topic for us. This topic, in my opinion, is INCREDIBLY biased against Pro, and--when most people look at this on face value--they will want to cast a Con ballot. I feel as if Larz has done a poor job in ensuring the topics he selects are well-balanced and fair. Thus, I would ask judges to be extra vigilant when evaluating this round to ensure their personal feelings are set aside. Thank you.2. The actor in the resolution is a "Government. " No specific government (e. g. the United States's government) has been identified, but rather we are debating about what a generic government should do. I will define a government as follows, since Pro has failed to do so: a government is 'an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area'. .. A proper government is 'the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i. e. , under objectively defined law. '" [1]Thanks to CDB for this debate. Thanks to anyone who reads this debate and votes; I appreciate it. I look forward to an interesting discussion. [1] . http://aynrandlexicon.com...
Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

This is for the WODC debate tournament.Bsh1 resolution: Drugs should be tested for safety only.Cooldudebro resolution: Drugs should be tested for both safety and effectiveness. These definitions must not be changed and no new ones shall be added.Drug: a substance that is used as a medicine (1)Public: of, relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc. (2)Effectivness: producing a result that is wanted : having an intended effect (3)Forfeit equals seven point drop.BoP is sharedGood luck!1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The tipping system in restaurants is flawed

"They place the burden of pay upon the customer rather than taking it on themselves, resulting in cheap labor and lower food prices." -> This means the customer pays less "The American need to feel served and catered to keeps the server position existing." -> This is one of the main reasons why people go to the restaurant, they do not want to have to cook, clean the dishes, carry the food, etc. They merely want to sit down and chat while all the work is done for them. This is part of the dinning experience. "Overall, the social stigma of not tipping and the reliance on tips to make a livable income essentially force restaurant patrons to tip and leave them with the choice of "How much to tip" rather than "Whether or not to tip"." -> Instead paying a high price on the food that they order, the customers are expected tip the waiter/waitress. Why should it matter if the customer is paying the restaurant directly or paying part of the servers salary? If anything this simply just give more power to the customer which is were it should ultimately lie in a free market or efficient business. "If this type of system were placed into other jobs, it would be more obvious. Imagine be forced to tip the car mechanic, the computer technician, the cashier, the janitor, or any of the thousands of service based jobs that don't have the same payment type." -> For this scenario to be similar, the serves fee for the other job would be lowered and than a standard tip would be assumed based on the amount that the serves fee was lowered by. "This means the server is just there to give flavor to the restaurant, a frill, a set piece, a mood setter at best. When we look at the actual work they do, they're main job is to bring food you ordered to your table, something that is trivially easy." -> As oppose to other minimum wage jobs? " If we compare that to the difficulty and skill required in being a cook, we have another example of how nonessential the server's job really is." -> A restaurant chef makes more money than a waiter, so I don't really understand the comparison. And the better the restaurant the more the chef salary increases on average. "This is how the majority of people tip their servers, typically falling between 15-25% of their total food bill." -> The tipping rate is 15%, people ussaly chose to go under it or over it depending on how they feel about the waiter and the price of the meal. "Mostly importantly, the price of the food bill usually has nothing to do with the the amount of work the server actually did." -> The 15% rate is arbitrary rule that is not a measure set in stone. Most people tip reasonably but do not offer a 15% rate if they paid for a very high meal. This position cannot be proven from either side since tipping income is not declared and therefore their is no way of reliably measuring it. "I end this round by saying: Tipping is the same thing as charity and any forced charity" I end my round by countering that tipping is a substitute for meal cost which gives more power to the customer.
The tipping system in restaurants is flawed

In the comment section my opponent and I have agree to modify the debate to: The Pro is arguing that the tipping system is flawed in comparison to a non-tipping system. And The Con is arguing that the tipping system is not flawed in comparison to a non-tipping system. For the sake of clarity, I recommend that my opponent confirm this in his second round. First, let's examine the working environment of waiter/waitresses. In order to maximize profit restaurants try to hire the least amount of workers as possible. Therefore, those who are hired end up carrying a heavier work load. As a result they are constantly running around refilling glass, taking the customers, bring those orders, as well as carrying clean and dirty dishes. In a good restaurant they have no time to stay idle. This rushing pace takes it toll on the employee which can affect his mood. Without some kind of incentive, it difficult to imagine why one would make a continuous effort to please the customer. This is where the tipping system factors in as it offer a continuous incentive for waiters/waitresses to maintain a positive attitude with the customer. Not only are they more likely to maintain a better attitude but they will also worker hard and better. This is because the waiters is positive enforcer after every tip which primes him for the next customer. The lack of tip or low tip can also work as a punishment which could motive him to try hard. Another point would be that without a typing system waiters would probably be given the minimum wage or something along those lines. This is a relatively low salary and when one consider that it is also taxable income it can seem unlivable. In the tipping system, however, the workers receive money "under the table" sort of speak, this allow them to lower their taxable income which result in earning more then if the restaurant were to simply give them the money directly. When a low waged worker receives more money his quality of life, on average, improves which results in a better mood and therefore better tips. The customer also benefit as he receive a better dinning experience and is given the ability to chose whether not reward his server and by how much. ____________________________________________________________________________ I will make additional arguments in the following rounds.
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

Accepted. Let's first review how 'species' is actually defined: 1a.) 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.' 1b.) 'A species is defined as organisms that produce fertile offspring but this is sometimes limited as some organisms do not always reproduce sexually, and some hybrids are fertile.' And 'intelligent design': 1a.) 'Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' I'd first note that as the instigator of this debate, it's on Pro to demonstrate further evidence in support of his resolution and show it to be correct. Pro is essentially arguing that all species, derive from intelligent design (meaning they are the direct result of a higher being/authority), but all species derive from cells, and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes (example, biological processes directly involve chemical reactions as a causative factor.) [1.] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Chemicals, are of course a fundamental part of life--with the air, the ocean, the clouds, the ground, and the planets all containing chemical elements that enable their continued existence. Where intelligent design bares any direct connection to any of this, is again for Pro to demonstrate; which they have so far failed to do.
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

SPECIES = INTELLIGENT DESIGN Any and all similarities between any two different species, including similarities in their respective DNA/RNA, their respective organs, and their respective behaviors, are evidence for Intelligent Design Science, not for so-called evo THEORY. In fact, scientific evidence for intelligent design is everywhere: Even if there were any "transitional forms" (which there have never been), such an imaginative scenario still would necessarily require an immense amount of planning, imagination, and implementation by an immensely powerful intelligent designer, with his own individual consciousness, as well as a personal desire to create such a scenario. Just as the similarities among different vehicles indicate the same intelligent designer, and the similarities among different telephones indicate the same intelligent designer, so the similarities among any two different species also indicate the same intelligent designer. Related short video:
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

Pro denies that they said this in round two: 'No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief anyway, so again, I forgive your ignorance. No evidence for your side = good news for my side. ' (As can be seen, they explicitly stated that cells do not derive from chemicals. ) The evidence provided in support of my statements regarding the cell-chemical question has been totally dropped by Pro, and they've failed to extend their argument/provide further proof in any way.