BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electoral college

SidesIf the voter of this debate were to choose whether the US president were determined by electors apportioned to states according to the US constitution, article 1 section 2 (electoral college) or by eligible citizen voters (national popular vote):Pro wins by persuading the voter to choose the electoral college.Con wins by persuading the voter to choose the national popular vote.This debate is not about whether to choose the plurality method, single transferrable vote, or a different voting method given a set of ballots. It is about whose ballots should be counted.FormatR1Con defines the sides and format.Pro accepts.R2Con makes new arguments.Pro makes new arguments and/or responses.R3Con makes new arguments and/or responses.Pro makes new arguments and/or responses.R4Con responds to previous posts.Pro responds to previous posts.R5Con waives this round except to address misconduct in Pro's R4 post, e.g. new arguments in the rebuttal.Pro waives this round except to defend against Con's R5 post.
Should your healthcare provider tell you about having an std

As the Con, I will argue that there is no valid reason a healthcare provider should be required to disclose his or her STD status or for that matter any personal health information to a patient. STD status is irrelevant to the quality of care provided to a patient, and as the term "Sexually Transmitted Disease" implies the vast majority of these diseases are spread through sexual or oral contact. In addition, healthcare providers are required to adhere to stringent standards of sanitation and precaution, such as frequent handwashing and the use of gloves when touching a patient or takng samples. This disclosure is also a gross invasion of a healthcare provider's privacy, and a clear violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which states that individually identifiable health information can only be disclosed to another healthcare provider for treatment without the patient's express permission. Disclosure of the health status of a healthcare provider could also irreparably damage his or her career, whether from stigma or fear of a public uninformed of how diseases are transmitted.
I am God.

***This is my first debate--ever, so forgive my mistakes, if any. Let it also be known that any text between asterisks cannot be used for a against this debate. Including the previous sentences and this one as well.*** In this debate my adversary will try to refute against the fact that I am God, the creator of life, time, and space. I, who flooded the space with my divine wisdom and serenity, have decided, in all my knowledge, to access the internet, connect to this website, create an account--of knowledge and wisdom--and chose to start this debate to prove my existence to atheist and other non-believers. Let it be known that by accepting this debate, you are entitled to begin debating this very round. In fact, there are four rounds, given by my holy power, that you are allowed to debate in. Be it also known that I already know the outcome of this debate. By accepting this debate you acknowledge my demands... that I demand upon you.
should kids have to be held back just cause of their grades

For one, your grammar and spelling is, frankly, abysmal. You want to work on that if you're going to debate on this site. As for music and physical education, the child knows what is expected of him in these classes. if he fails to meet the requirements I see no reason for them to not be held back. If the rest of the class can succeed, he can too. You failed to explain why it "doesn't matter", so I can't argue with you.
should kids have to be held back just cause of their grades

Kids should certainly be help back if they have failing grades. Their friends are irrelevant, children who fail one level of study certainly can't be expected to succeed in further levels - that's unfair to ask of both the student and teachers. If children are allowed to continue, they'd be forced to study at level they cannot comprehend for years. I honestly can't think of any reason a student SHOULDN'T be held back. Allowing a student to continue would cause them to never advance beyond the level of education they failed at.
Should the legal drinking age be changed to 18

As my opponent has not yet given his opening arguments I will give mine:1. 18 is the age of adulthood. Adults should have the right to make there own decisions regarding alcohol. If their country does not trust them with this how can adulthood be taken seriously? Today, turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military ; some of these things are dangerous, but as people have become adults, they have the right to choose whether or not they want to do these dangerous things. Why should they not choose to drink or not?2. If drinking from 18 - 20 becomes legal, than there will be less alcohol related problems. This is because as they will be drinking in regulated environments, it will not be as dangerous as underage drinking today. As these people will be allowed to drink in restaurants, bars, etc., they will be in a place that can make sure there is no reckless behavior with alcohol.3. Most countries where the drinking age is 18 have smaller numbers of drunk driving fatalities.4. Lowering the drinking age would lower the thrill in illegal drinking by people 18-21. This would in turn reduce the consumption and reduce accidents surrounding alcohol.5. Lowering the drinking age would reduce the number of underage people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.6. Lowering the drinking age would benefit the economy.I reduced the number of my points as my opponent did not have the opportunity to give any.
reggee is mentally retarded

It's just him making a joke.His ethnicity is East Indian. Although he is being stupid and even hypocritical on his Indian claim, this does not make him retarted. There are many examples where people are hypocrites(like Liberals on Alternative Energy) but this does not make him retarted. His terrible grammer could be part of his joke. Just because you make grammer mistakes does not make you retarted. You made a grammer mistake in your last round. You said, "fortnite".There are many people on debate.org who are on here as a joke. There are so many people on debate.org as a joke that there is a funny tab just for them. It would be better if he used it, but I've seen worse stuff on debate.org.
reggee is mentally retarded

I think that reggee from debate.org is mentally retarded. Just so you know, here is a link to his debate.org profile: http://www.debate.org... He obviously is mentally retarded. As you can tell from his profile, his ethnicity/race is East Indian (from India), but he also wants Indians banned from living. http://www.debate.org... It's ridiculous, right? He also doesn't know the difference b/w gay and lesbian. He thinks that just b/c sb doesn't play a stupid video game means that they are homosexual. http://www.debate.org... You're con, with 3 rounds and 3 days to prepare your argument.
reggee is mentally retarded

It's part of his joke. http://www.debate.org... many debates where people are making jokes. Is what he is doing smart? No. But he should be allowed to be on debate.org. It's free wins for anyone who is serious about debating. https://www.salon.com... that over 1/4 Americans are internet trolls. Maybe reggee is simply one of them.Given that freedom of speech is a right in the 1st amendment of the Constitution, he should have the right to act like a jokester/troll https://www.whitehouse.gov...
reggee is mentally retarded

That's still hypocritical. You see, for one last time, he's an Indian. Why the heck would he want Indians to be illegal? It just makes no sense. Go to round 5 of this debate: http://www.debate.org... He says, and I quote, "oh yeah? well i have a pp" PP either means pepperoni pizza, Pablo Picasso (a Spanish artist), or private part. I doubt he works in a pizzeria, b/c nobody wants an Indian to stink up delicious food. He does not own Picasso; the Spanish government owns his paintings. Thus, it must be private part. That shows how people think he must be transgender retard. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ~Sherlock Holmes
Physical reality is fundamentally timeless

Rebuttals "Ladies and Gentlemen, what is time? Since my opponent failed to define the term we'll be using for this debate I'll be building my case around the following definition for the sake of argument; "a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues: duration b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"1 Simply put, it is the process of changing states; the rate of which events, things and moments pass and change at a point in time. My opponent will argue that this rate of change does not exist in our physical universe, that it has no time. I however believe that in order for systems to change they require time. Nothing can truly happen instantly in the macro world and all motion requires some form of time to effectively do so. " You misunderstood; Time IS (At times) physical. However, the fundamentality of time's physicality implies that all movement requires time, which is false. How so? I will present my argument again. Special Relativity According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the faster something moves, the slower its/his/her time passes RELATIVE to others. So, light can travel a mile and yet, not even the very least second has past (Taking into mind the incredible speed of light). I will leave others (Except for the following) out. He/She (Haven't checked) simply explains the concept of special relativity. "But does this mean that time does not exists? No, it simply means that time isn't an absolute value, it changes as we move around our physical world." Yes, I know. It varies depending on one's/someone's speed (Hence, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity). So, because of light's incredible speed (And this will be repeated over and over again), it can travel an inch, yet, not even the very least second passes, thus meaning that time isn't FUNDAMENTALLY physical. "In fact, the light that went a mile did take time, it takes a little over 5 microseconds from all other FoR not included within the photon FoR. Microseconds are a ridiculously small amount of time, but it still seems an eternity if we compare it to the planck time, the smallest time unit possible; it is the time required for light to travel a single (reduced) planck length, the smallest length a photon can move, or at least that is how the theory goes.4" Ah. I was trying to display an example. What if light travels 3 inches? Most probably, not even the very least second passes. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Physical reality is fundamentally timeless

Rules1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.3. I am arguing in favor of the resolution that physical reality is fundamentally timeless, because that implies that EVERY MOVEMENT requires time.4. BoP is shared.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.Presentation Special Relativity According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the faster something moves, the slower its/his/her time passes RELATIVE to others. So, light can travel a mile and yet, not even the very least second has past (Taking into mind the incredible speed of light).
i can own you at cod and halo

A. Lost skill "I completely agree with you. However, this is not true for everyone, a lot of people get xbox live as soon as possible, so in some cases their rank does represent how good they are." I understand what you are saying but it was only an example. B. I have memorized the maps as well "Yes, but you only get to play on them every weekend. However, I can play on them whenever I want and have access to them everyday. So you may be familiar with them, but I have truly memorized them and know them better than you." As long as i am familiar with the maps i can apply my strategies and beat you.
i can own you at cod and halo

A. Lost skill "I am sure everyone will agree with me when I say that your rank does not determine your skill. someone could be a beast at halo and not have xbox live." I completely agree with you. However, this is not true for everyone, a lot of people get xbox live as soon as possible, so in some cases their rank does represent how good they are. B. I have memorized the maps as well "As you know I have a cousin that buys every dlc and maps for halo and cod. I go to his house every weekend and play xbox with him. so yes I have memorized the new maps as well as you." Yes, but you only get to play on them every weekend. However, I can play on them whenever I want and have access to them everyday. So you may be familiar with them, but I have truly memorized them and know them better than you.
i can own you at cod and halo

A.lost skill "so it'spossible you have lost some of your skill, not to mention my rank excedes yours tremendously." You should know that one cannot lose skill but merely ignore it. After 30 minutes of playing halo, i can remember everything suddenly and reignite my skill, which you are profoundly afraid of. I am sure everyone will agree with me when i say that your rank does not determine your skill. someone could be a beast at halo and not have xbox live. then when he does get xbox live he could be a private but own generals. your rank is nothing when it comes to skill. B. I have memorized the maps as well. "I'm sure I have memorized the latest mythic maps better than you, as well ast the legendary maps. So what if we had a 1v1 match on Assembly, you woulnd't know what to do." As you know i have a cousin that buys every dlc and maps for halo and cod. i go to his house every weekend and play xbox with him. so yes i have memorized the new maps as well as you. C. I own you a cod I completely agree. no competition. i didnt mean to put that in the prompt. but i do stand by my earlier quote, rank does not determine skill. even so people dont have to go prestige. good job.
i can own you at cod and halo

My Terms: Halo - Video game series consisting of Halo:Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3. Created by Bungie Call of Duty(cod) - Video games series that deals with military and various wars. Thank you for allowing me to debate with you. A. Lost skills Now, I have to admit that you have played longer than me, I have more skill than you. Why? Because I play halo A LOT every week, almost every day, you don't play it as much anymore, so it'spossible you have lost some of your skill, not to mention my rank excedes yours tremendously. B. I have memorized the maps as well. You may have have known the first maps better than me, but what about the latest maps? I'm sure I have memorized the latest mythic maps better than you, as well ast the legendary maps. So what if we had a 1v1 match on Assembly, you woulnd't know what to do. C. I own you a cod I know I own you at cod. a. I have played more than you, I played every day for almost 2 months, and still play it today b. I have more knowledge of all the guns and maps. c. I have gone through all the rankings 6 times. I am 6th Prestige Level 34
Is Left 4 Dead better then Resident Evil

The way I see it Left 4 Dead is kinda better because of the fact that it has a great replay value. It is never the same on any of the levels and you can have a ton of funny moment. Resident Evil is a good game too I mainly like Resident Evil 4 and 5 because it gives a new style of game play from the old versions plus upgrading your guns is always amazing but the game gets boring if you've play it two or three times you already know where all the zombies are and the bosses and gun so it doesn't have a high replay value like Left 4 Dead but they are both great games I just think Left 4 Dead is funner.
Is Left 4 Dead better then Resident Evil

I do agree with you, it has more than one game type but it needs one more thing. Deathmatch. Left 4 Dead doesnt have it but Resident evil does. Not to mention you can choose a costume with diffrent weapons. And as for the replayability thing, its not that much replayable as you probably think. The zombies spawn generaly in the same area as they normaly do. And the witches have like what, 4 or 5 possible spawn points (not including hard rain). And the tanks, they have like 3 or 4 possible spawn per map, just like the witches. And some of the guns actualy spawn IN THE SAME PLACE (not including beggining of first mission of an episode). I mean sure Left 4 dead got mutation and some wierd game types and modded maps on the computer, but Resident evil got modded maps too (also on the computer). And to finalize, Resident evil has secrets, collectables, and boss fights. And who doesnt love boss fights. And dont cal the tank a boss. It's a mini boss at most. This is why I think Resident Evil is better ( or just as good) than Left for Dead.
Is Left 4 Dead better then Resident Evil

Well I will agree with you that Resident Evil has a amazing storyline and better guns but as I said before Left 4 Dead has better replay value plus it has humor which most zombie games are deprived of. Resident Evil is amazing just because of the fact that it's Resident Mfuckin Evil but Left 4 Dead just seems like more of a game that will never get old. Being able to play with your friends is one of the main things Left 4 Dead has over Resident Evil. Resident Evil 5 tried the whole partner thing but it didn't really work out. Left 4 Dead also has more game modes with is really fun because it changes the game play and keeps it from being boring.
Is Left 4 Dead better then Resident Evil

First of all, what are we talking about here? The series, or the one game? For this argument, i'll be talking about the whole series. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyways, I think Resident evil is better than Left for Dead. Here's why I say this: Left 4 Dead dosent realy go into it's storyline. In fact it went into its storline as much as Doom 1, 2, and final did. However Resident Evil had a richer storyline. The first one starts out as a helicopter crash, and you gradualy start to find out more as you progress through the game. In Left for Dead, you know litle bit more by reading the walls, but not as much as Resident Evil. Also Resident Evil has a better (by better I mean more detailed) plot. The plot isnt that much original but still good. Left 4 Dead is very similar to Doom with the whole hell bent apocalypse story line. You're pretty much lone survivors trying to make it to safety. Also, Resident Evil has more emotion than Left 4 dead. In Left 4 Dead, when a teammate dies you just say a few quick words while shooting the tank in its face with an M60. Or you just share some slight humor while the zombie horde is pummeling the tar out of you. In Resident evil you share a variety of emotions: sadness, shock, awe, fright, anger, revenge wanting, and a lot of other emotions. And to finalize, Resident Evil has better guns. Left 4 dead has 17 wepons while Resident Evil Has 20 guns (not including the rotten egg and the grenades and the grenade laucher and its ammo types. Thats why Resident evil is better than Left 4 dead.
SSRIs/SNRIs should never be prescribed without a warning of P.A.N.E.S.

Contrary to what my opponent states, there actually is a link between physician-instructed discontinuation of SSRIs/SNRIs and the previously quoted list of side effects. The language is vague merely because when describing emotional problems, you can't be certain t you are describing is 100% accurate because emotions are subjective. To be able to describe what emotional problems are like with 100% certainty would require the author of a paper to have experienced it himself. This why the ocean of anecdotal evidence is sufficient support for my argument. For another source of anecdotal evidence, see http://www.paxilprogress.org... for a forum owned by a certified and practicing nurse who acknowledges the existence of long-term side-effects of SSRI discontinuation, even when performed a doctor's supervision. PANES actually IS similar to withdrawal. PANES is merely a collection of symptoms; since they are identical to that of withdrawal in every way except their persistence and the fact they may present themselves even before discontinuation, PANES is indeed similar to withdrawal. I will now refute your 3 points. 1. PANES may occur even without discontinuing the drug. 2. This point is irrelevant; it's an argument against any and all warnings under the described circumstances. If the patient has no say in what treatment they get, what good is warning them of side-effects of the treatment? 3. PANES in the context of SSRIs/SNRIs differs from that of other medications in that it is sometimes resistant to all treatment attempts to alleviate it's effects. I look forward to your next rebuttal.
SSRIs/SNRIs should never be prescribed without a warning of P.A.N.E.S.

Allow me to satisfy your desire for incidence rates from a more reputable source with a quote from Dr. David Healy MD:"These symptoms appear in anything between 20% to 50% of patients taking SSRIs[...] In milder cases problems may clear up after a week or two, but in others symptoms may continue weeks or months after the last dose and for some patients it may not be possible to stop treatment. Specialist help may benefit some patients in this latter group, if only to provide suggestions on antidotes to continuing drug induced problems such as loss of libido." (1)In the above quote, Dr. Healy was referring to this list of symptoms, which when persistent, or continuing indefinitely, can be described as P.A.N.E.S. (it must be noted that since PANES is a syndrome, and syndromes are merely a collection of symptoms, any similar collection of symptoms to PANES can be appropriately labeled as PANES): Dizziness Headache Muscle Spasms Tremor Electric Shock-like Sensations Other Strange Tingling or Painful Sensations Nausea, Diarrhoea, Flatulence Dreams, including Vivid Dreams AgitationDepression Lability of Mood Irritability Agitation Confusion Fatigue/Malaise Flu-like Feelings Insomnia or Drowsiness Mood Swings Sweating Feelings of Unreality Feelings of being Hot or Cold Dr. Healy's words are another way of saying that some patients suffer side effects caused by their medication that are so persistent, the medication can never be discontinued, since the most common method of dealing with withdrawal (titration, or slow reduction in dosage) does not cure the symptoms. Also, he mentions the existence of continuing (persistent) problems like loss of libido. This problem in particular is particularly concerning, because the only help he suggests, even being a medical doctor with much experience on this topic, is: "Specialist help may[...] suggest antidotes to continuing drug induced problems like loss of libido." Note he never mentions the word 'cure' or 'solve;' only 'may.' We are discussing persistent adverse neurological affects that are apparently incurable,presumably unintended by the prescriber, but Con suggests this doesn't warrant a warning in all cases of this medication being prescribed. Con, can you name one instance in which you are sure these P.A.N.E.S. have no chance of occurring?(1) http://www.benzo.org.uk...Just so we're clear on a few points, please let me know if you disagree with any of the following points, and I look forward to your response:These medications (SSRIs/SNRIs) may cause side effects during useThey may cause withdrawal upon discontinuation, which can be averted under proper care by titrating down properlyThese may cause a syndrome similar to withdrawal in effects that is not remedied by titration, and can last months or yearsThese symptoms described are neurological in nature (which is why the label PANES is appropriate)