BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should stop using functioning labels do describe autistic people

1. The DSM V does not use the terms "high functioning" and "low functioning". They use level 1, 2 and 3These terms are not the same. They have different connotations. I will point out problems with previous DSM diagnosis.CDD is a disorder of its own and not a part of the autism spectrum. In autism, abilities are uneven. A child may be good in one area and bad in another. In CDD, children lose all their skills in every area evenly and some have hallucinations and severe fear/anxiety.PDD-NOS meant means someone who has a developmental disorder but does not meet the full criteria for autism. So we never had a term that means "none of the above".Asperger's was removed because (as I already pointed out) being able to speak has nothing to do with intelligence.2. The new level labels have specific diagnostic criteriahttps://www.autismspeaks.org...As I pointed out in a previous argument that functioning labels are highly subjective. What is high functioning to one person can be low functioning to another. The new labels base on the level of support required, leaving no room for interpretation.3. What about education instead of changing the terminology?I agree that education is important and that what I pointed out in my arguments are largely due to ignorance. But terminology can perpetuate ignorance (and cam be a result of ignorance). We changed the term mental retardation to intellectual disability. Should we have educated people on mental retardation instead? Both education/awareness and terminology are important. Terminology can effect how people think about disabilities.4. Functioning labels are used to silence and underestimate autistic peopleI pointed out in my previous argument. Some people say "you don't speak for low functioning autistics".http://lysikan.tumblr.com...This blogger says she is "low functioning". She doesn't speak, needs help using the bathroom (her body doesn't tell her brain when she needs to pee), cannot make reasonable decisions about finances and requires round the clock care so she won't hurt herself. Someone said she is not "low functioning" because she can write a blog post.http://community.babycenter.com...http://www.theautismdaddy.com...This implies people who are level 3 cannot write a blog post, and that level 3 children will not be able to write a blog post one day. Carly Fleischmann, Amy Sequenzia, Larry Bissonnette, Amanda Baggs, Tracy Thresher, Hope Block, Sue Rubin, Tito Mukhopadhyay and Rhema Russell have proven this wrong.https://rhemashope.wordpress.com...This causes families, teachers, etc. to underestimate autistic children. Carly Fleischmann said "people think I'm dumb because I can't talk".
Is Freedom better than security

Ok fair points. Here's what I have to say: 1) Ok so yes, security is better than freedom in a mental hospital but how can you possibly use that as an example for government. Are you saying that when a government installs security for their people, it is with the intention of keeping the people from harming themselves? I understand your next point which highlights security being important to keep people from killing each other but the mental hospital is not a valid example. 2) I didn't say no security. If you had no freedom than everyone would be tied up in a concrete room alone (or whatever other example of having absolutely no freedom you would like to give). Assuming that the definition of security is "the state of being free from danger or threat," than if you had no security as you basically said everyone would be in constant danger and threat. How could we debate those two options? We are discussing which is more important. Also, lets just say that we are talking about all or nothing. Would it be any better the other way around? Having only security/having no freedom would be just as bad. The fact that we can have this debate is because of freedom. Take a moment and think about what it would be like to have absolutely no rights. 3) First off, I just want to say that your writing style in that last paragraph is extremely poor and I'm still not sure if I have the right idea of what your saying. That said, forgive me/please correct me if I misinterpret what you said. Anyway, you just completely contradicted yourself. Earlier you stated that, "Government is a few people in control of everyone else." In your third paragraph you stated that the people should make sure the laws aren't, "Made by a few to control everyone else." Pick your side. In addition, did you mean that we, couldn't manage WITHOUT some rules or laws? I don't have much to say in response to this because it is very confusing and also slightly irrelevant. Ok so the government is your security but how does that relate to freedom? You're just saying that the government and people make important laws. Also laws aren't always the same as security and they don't make people become responsible. It's hard for me to debate someone who isn't taking a clear stance. Your only paragraph with actual substance was the second one (about why a world of just freedom would be bad). At first you talk about a mental hospital as an example of government, then you say go on an illiterate tangent about the U.S. democratic system. Thanks for the debate. My gift to you will be the last word. ps Don't bother correcting my spelling or grammar (it won't change the fact that your wrong).
Is Freedom better than security

Lets define freedom. "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint" Most times people are put in restraint is because they have a mental illness. "Restraints in a medical setting are items that limit a patient's movement. Restraints can help keep a person from getting hurt or doing harm to others, including their caregivers. They are used as a last resort." So we see here that security is more important than freedom. If a mentally ill person was let out, being untreated they could hurt themselves, or hurting other innocent people. If people chose to live freely and we had no security the world would be a disaster. There would be complete anarchy. Just follow it through...What if there were not laws on the road to follow....What if anyone could break into your home...take anything they want kill people with no consequences but "government"and "rules" are two different things. Government is a few people in control of everyone else and therefore should be very limited which is why our Constitution spelled out very limited roles they were to have. Our founders knew what a Government in England had done to their rights and didn't want to see that happen again. Rules...or laws are supposed to be made to protect us. A bad law, can be changed. But it is the people who have to keep watch that they are the right laws...not just made by a few to control everyone else. We could manage without a government....but we couldn't manage with some rules or laws. In our country we, the people are the government because we decide! The government is just like our security. They make laws to abide by so that way everyone can become responsible and safe. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Is Freedom better than security

Is freedom better than security? Yes. Freedom is in all aspects more important than security. Now a government has to find their desired balance between the two so obviously there will be some of both but when it comes to their importance, the answer is clear. point 1: A commonly used example of this topic is a jail cell. If you have a lot of security but, no/very little freedom than you are a prisoner. You have no rights except being alive. What's the point of being alive if you don't belong to yourself? What's the point of security if you are not free to be yourself/to be human? So let's look at this from your point of view by switching the argument. Say you had an immense amount of freedom with only a little security. Now maybe you don't feel safe, maybe you aren't safe but you can live life to the fullest. Look at it this way... Would you rather be confined to a hospital bed for your entire life, or be free to live your life for say, 50, 20, 10, or even 5 years? Personally, I would choose the later. point 2: My second point relates my first point. I think there's a question that we ultimately have to answer. What are we here for? That is, what do humans exist to do? I believe that this is where our opinions clash. I do not think that we are here to stay alive. I don't think that our sole purpose is survival. When we are in a state of freedom, we can think, we can feel, we can connect, we can experience being human. That's what separates us from other animals. We are not always thinking of survival, we are exploring, and innovating, and creating, and destroying. A governments primary goal should not be to ensure absolute safety but to create a state in which we are free. Point 3: Yes, security is important because we can't do any of this if we are dead. But we can't do any of this if we are overly secure either. Life is about taking risks otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere. What do you exist to do to just follow rules is that how we have accomplished things in the past? "If no one ever took risks, Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine floor." (Neil Simon) To sum up my argument, I thought I would use a very fitting quote by Abraham Lincoln: "In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." (Abraham Lincoln) Your turn!
Is Freedom better than security

I'm sorry everybody, my opponent may have over looked the point of what a debate it. He isn't making his point very clear like he should have in the 1st round. I'm finding it very difficult to understand what he's trying to say. My opponent states "I understand your next point which highlights security being important to keep people from killing each other but the mental hospital is not a valid example. " My point is infact valid. People who have mental issues and are a danger and threat to our society is put into a mental institution . The Mental institution acts as a security to protect unstable people who may be a threat, therefore my argument is valid. My opponent then argues: :First off, I just want to say that your writing style in that last paragraph is extremely poor and I'm still not sure if I have the right idea of what your saying" This is quiet funny coming from someone who can really spell. He also says that "Your writing style in the last paragraph is poor" yet he is not a judge, and he isn't very good at specifying his belief and opinions in the first round. Now finally, lets move on to his last statement "Ok so the government is your security but how does that relate to freedom? " The topic that he chose was Is "Freedom better than security" Clearly what this means is that he'd rather have people have complete freedom, meaning people would have guns, all drugs would be legalized, rape would be acceptable and so on and so on. I say that security is more important than freedom because we'd rather keep our loved one's safe, and innocent people safe. Sometimes we need to stop being selfish and thinking of our self and put things in perspective and think of the consequences and think of other people Thank you for this debate.
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

My penis size is 10.14 inch. Average is 5.7 inch. Therefore my penis is like two average penises. Now if my penis is not gay then it is "good". If evil is the opposite of good then gay penises should be -10.14 inch. But then it would be a vagina. Therefore gays do not exist. Therefore evil does not exist. But it is not true because your physical experience is false, therefore you're wrong.
Convert me

Well, I shall then proceed to make arguments for the case of the non-existence of God. However, my opponent must also respond to my former criticisms of course. 1[5]) God cannot be verified or falsified. A problem for the theist is that he cannot provide a testable hypothesis for God. If God does exist, how would this world be different? If God does not exist, how would this world be different? These are questions that the theist must deal with. 2[6])God versus Occam's Razor It would seem both unpractical and unnecessary to infer the existence of God if there is nothing in the universe that necessarily requires a deity's qualities. A happy new year to my opponent. :)
Convert me

Indeed I forfeited Round 2 because I realised that I would end up having one Round more than my opponent. I therefore also forfeit this Round (since my opponent chose to not post new arguments in Round 2), and urge my opponent to elaborate/post arguments for his case. I apologise if this seems unreasonable or it produces discomfort with the audience, but I believe that it's only fair that both contenders get an even number of Rounds. :)
Convert me

This shall be a great experience for the both of us. 1) The argument of the prime mover My opponent claims that because he is the prime mover behind the hypothetical cup, then God must be the prime mover behind the universe. This argument, however, does not tell us why the universe needs a prime mover or why God would be the most reasonable explanation. These questions need answering before the argument can be sound. 2) My opponent tries to argue from design in nature. However, there are two problems in the argument: 1. The first premise of the argument supposes that our perception of things' beauty is objective. However, it seems clear that human perception of beauty is highly subjective (different schools of art and aesthetics). As such it makes the argument unsound as it relies on a subjective idea. 2. My opponent asserts that such features cannot be accounted by random processes, but only by mind. However, this leaves us in a false dichotomy. The options are not only mind or randomness, but also the physical constants of the universe (gravity, thermodynamics and so on). These are fixed and non-random processes. 3) My opponent claims that morality and love are not epiphenomena. He needs to elaborate on this point as this is only an assertion so far. The same goes for the argument from objective morality and the transcendental argument from logic and science. 4) My opponents argument against materialism is quite impressive, but it has a problem. 1. "No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source" claims my opponent. However, this begs the question in favor of Substance Dualism, which is not necessarily true. It would seem that the mind (a rational source, if you will. ) is a combination of several physical materials (the brain's components). This is evident from the fact of brain damage. When humans are exposed to trauma in the brain mass, we tend to lose properties of our mental structure such as memory, the capability to reason, motor abilities and oftentimes the ability to even remain conscious. This indicates, that our mental structure is subject to influence from physical causes, which in turn makes our mental structure dependent on physical effects[1]. Source: [1] Churchland, Paul (1988) Matter and Consciousness, Revised Edition, Cambridge,
Convert me

To clarify, as my opponent has not specified any real religion, I shall be defending the existence of A God. I will not assert the non-existence of more than one God, so as to satisfy both the monotheist view and the view that there is more than one God. Everything needs a "prime mover". If I were to move a cup from one table to another, I would be its prime mover. Therefore, the Universe also needed a "prime causer" to come into existence. That prime causer was God. There is also the teleological argument. In a basic approach, there would be 5 steps, with the 5th asserting God's existence; 1. Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty. 2. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind. 3. Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature. 4. A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God. " 5. Therefore, God exists. Furthermore, the existence of non-physical properties, such as love and morality, are evidence of the existence of a God, as they are not an epiphenomenon. The existence of objective morality itself suggests the existence of a superior being. This being is God. Moreover, logic and science do not make sense without the existence of a God. If knowledge exists, then God exists. Without God, knowledge is not possible. The argument against materialism holds: 1. For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source. 2. No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source. 3. Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source. 4. The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source. 5. A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim. 6. Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source. 7. Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source. 8. Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing. 9. No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality. 10. All humans began to exist at some point in time. 11. Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies. Conclusion: This being is God. Note that these are all philosophical arguments. I shall discuss other types of arguments in Rounds 2-5. I once again thank my opponent for such an interesting debate, and wish him, and the audience, a happy and prosperous New Year. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Oblivion is Better than Skyrim

I am thouroghly offended by your heinous accusation. So are all of my friends. Did you know that you made the Dragonborn cry? Yeah, that's right! He bawled for like twelve in-game hours. I will not allow you to apply such reckless hate to Skyrim. Oblivion, on the other hand, SUCKS! That's right, I hate it! You want to hear why? I will tell you, my sweet cornish hen:Major Points of Contention:1. COMBATAnyone that has played the combat of both games knows that the combat is drastically different. However, not different as in both unique and appealing to different audiences. Skyrim's combat is undoubtably superior. Skyrim expands greatly on Oblivion's combat, adding the ability to dual-wield weapons, a wider range of swinging motions, non-restricted power attacks, more accurate and enjoyable archery, a wider range of spells to cast, and an overall more sophisticated, entertaining, and realistic combat system. 2. VISUALSMy opponent already conceded this point. But for anyone who hasn't played both games, the graphics take a huge leap forward in Skyrim. The visual difference is truly staggering. Yeah. As cute as the vibrantly green Oblivion orc is, I prefer the Skyrim one. Role-PlayingSkyrim's role-playing aspects are far superior to Oblivion. Skyrim allows the player to marry from a variety of NPCs, gain positions in the royal court, determine the outcome of the civil war, and even (in DLC) adopt and raise children and pets. All of these game-changing and immersive activities were absent in Oblivion. ConclusionI could certainly find more evidence for my case, but I am already on top in this debate. I'm also relatively sure that my opponent won't return to finish the debate. I urge her to prove me wrong. Don't vote MikalDon't vote BladeDon't vote LannanVOTE CON
Pres. Obama bailed out big money and "too big to fail" corporations but not the working poor class

Then why does President Obama speak out against GMO companies and support raising the minimum wage? Because he believes that the rights of workers and the middle and poor classes are more important than the profits of greedy large "too big to fail" corporations. Obamas entire goal was to improve the economy and the lives of the middle and poor class, he has made this very clear and so have I.
Pres. Obama bailed out big money and "too big to fail" corporations but not the working poor class

When President Obama took office he passed new laws and programs to save the country from financial collapse. This is the proof in itself. He bailed out the money changers who caused the economic crisis and put them back in charge. We have only one major political party in the U.S. and it should be called the Globalist Free Trader party. President Clinton followed the elder President Bush and pushed the passage of all the free trade programs that the elder Bush designed. President Bush the second followed President Clinton and hid the economic mess behind his shock and awe pre-emptive wars while pushing the globalist free trader policies of President Clinton. President Obama came and continued the process. President Obama himself used the term "too big to fail' corporations in the passing the programs saving major corporations while ignoring all the smaller businesses who lost everything due to free trade. President Obama sure is willing to co-operate with the Republicans this way because there is really no division between them about pushing free trade and fast track. Both parties have betrayed workers everywhere. The trade deficit which has not been addressed by either party represents the loss of trillions of dollars of value forever. http://tapsearch.com... http://ray-tapajna-info.net...
Pres. Obama bailed out big money and "too big to fail" corporations but not the working poor class

This is the same argument you posted before. Obama has publicly stated that he is willing to cooperate with Republicans to improve the economy for workers and for the corporates he has made many significant actions to make the middle class have more rights. You also have used no evidence or proof to prove this all you have done is state the fact that Obama bailed out big corporations, this is not true.
Pres. Obama bailed out big money and "too big to fail" corporations but not the working poor class

Simply put, Obama bailed out big money, banks , investment communities and the "too big to fail" corporations while completely ignored the the suffering of the working poor class and those without jobs. Only about 38 percent of all American workers qualify for unemployment insurance. This means more than 60 percent of all workers in are living in economic limbo. They are missing in action from any kind of real reporting. The value of workers and labor has been degraded and deflated in the process. This value is an asset that has lost trillions of dollars in value lost forever . Our economy based on making money on money instead of making things is burning away. Obama Health Care is too categorized with millions falling between the classifications. Small business people do not know what to do too. They find it impossible to hire full time workers. There is also a vast population of elderly who are now rationing their health care because they can not afford to pay for all of the co-pays. Obama care is a health care train wreck. See http://ray-tapajna-info.net... and http://bridgeurl.com...