BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
technology should take place of teachers at school

I shall finish Computers are never unreasonable: A computer has no capacity for negative reasoning, so it would never give a pupil unnecessary work, or difficult assignments . A computer would simply give the proper amount of work, no more, no less. Computers are fun: Yes computers are fun to use, and they have a variety of games to play. A computer could provide educational games for a class to play that are beneficial, not just telling them to be quiet, or calling off "sick" School is for learning: At the end of the day school is for learning, not having a laugh or idling time, though people do tend to do those things on a regular basis. A teacher would possibly lack discipline and just allow students to skip work. Sources: http://www.christenseninstitute.org.........
Finish the sentence!

Once upon a time, Stalin decided to create a debate, a stalinesque debate: loser gets strangled, winner gets shot: which resulted in the deaths of Millions (Blinky Millions, that is, the famous Moscow Circus Clown), who decided to punch Orogami in after getting drunk on vodka, but when he called for another shot Stalin gladly complied. Since we'll be judged on grammar, I feel compelled to point out that Pro misspelled my handle and stranded that preposition. Punch me in the face?
Rent Control is Bad, part 2

This is a NO SCORING debate. You are more than welcome to comment on it, but please do not score it.This debate is a continuation of this one: http://www.debate.org... 1) The idea is that rent control is a price ceiling on rents. By not subjecting new housing to this price ceiling, you are not advocating rent control. From your source on San Francisco - "All new construction, since 1979, is exempt from rent control in San Francisco." This means that San Francisco effectively does not have rent control for large portions of the city.a) As to "why...demand suddenly increase to two houses tomorrow," that could be for a myriad of reasons. Typically the reason is job opportunity. Silicon Valley is a prime example...without it, demand for housing in San Jose would be flat.b) With the "no rent control to new buildings" amendment, is rising cost still a problem?No, but this is no longer rent control. You are removing the price ceiling.3) Was this agreeing that the constrained rent control wouldn't hurt incentives, even if it still causes the maintainance problem?Yes, but you're acknowledging that removing the price ceiling, i.e. removing rent control, is the solution, not the problem.4) The idea is that rent control prices rise a little bit each year (which is also what currently happens, but if it isn't, use this as an amendment), so it covers rising maintainance cost.No, I believe that covers inflation. If maintainance cost goes up, then his renting price will also go up so he still makes 100k. Why does this require government intervention? Without rent control, if maintenance costs go up, so will rents to compensate. The government regulation is there PRECISELY because the government does NOT want rents to go up, hence rent CONTROL. This is why landlords get screwed by legislation mandating a certain level of maintenance.You're going to have to quote the relevant portions of your source.
Rent Control is Bad, part 2

The Resolution is AffirmedCON: Alright, so now let's call "limited rent control" "rent stabalization." I concede that rent control is bad, but I am still convinced rent stabilization is good.Both PRO/CON recognize that the debate over the resolution is over. Rent control is indeed bad, i.e. not preferable. This is not a black and white assessment, rather that overall, the case against this particular price ceiling is stronger than the case for it.---CON asks: "Do you think there exist a benign (no harmful economic effects) form of rent stabilization?"My stance on any government intervention is that it's a necessary evil, and should thus be of limited quantity. The idea is that the government generally has no business in setting prices wholesale for a slew of products, and that the private sector through "price discovery" is much more effective and efficient in allocating investment to appropriate sectors. http://en.wikipedia.org... However, there are instances where the market will break down for a product even though the product is absolutely necessary for survival. An example of this would be if water traded on the marketplace, and how it would trade following a major disaster where the victims are cut off from a water supply. Supply and demand would dictate that the demand for water would be extraordinarily high due to extraordinary circumstances, but to deny water simply because people could not afford exhorbitant prices for such a basic good would be seen as price gouging and out-of-control greed by merchants. Thus, the government intervenes...this IMHO aptly explains why most utilities are quasi-government institutions even though they are ostensibly private corporations.Similarly, housing is another basic good. It does no one any benefit to deny housing to individuals simply because rental rates are too high...it would exacerbate a situation of homelessness which is not only socially undesirable, but may even lower property prices for the very landlords demanding the high rents justified by the marketplace. This is another breakdown in price discovery, and in that sense, the government justifiably intervenes in a limited fashion to ensure that the market does not break down due to the normal mechanics of price discovery.To apply this answer to CON's proposed rent stabilization proposal:1) This will put a ceiling on profits, and landlords will sell their property in favor of less restrictive markets.2) ok3) See #1.4) See #1.5) The problem with "traditional livelihood" is that many times, what is "traditional" is anachronisitic. Examples of this would be human sacrifice, which was practiced not only in "uncivilized" societies, but also in ancient Greco-Roman culture. Basically, "adapt or die".http://en.wikipedia.org...I therefore conclude that CON's rent stabilization proposal is not benign, and has all of the elements that makes rent control bad.
Rent Control is Bad, part 2

Alright, so now let's call "limited rent control" "rent stabalization." I concede that rent control is bad, but I am still convinced rent stabilization is good. Though it may waste a whole turn to do this, I need to ask this question before continuing. Do you think there exist a benign (no harmful economic effects) form of rent stabilization? I think there is, and if you disagree, I intend to argue that, while if you agree, then we are on the same page. My form of benign rent stabilization is basically what I have been arguing: 1) Price control based on a year, under the assumption that a landlord will only make as much profit as he did at that year 2) New buildings are exempt from price control so there is incentive to build new buildings 3) the price control will adjust so that the landlord can meet costs and maintain his profit. However, he will have no (or few) opportunities to increase his profit based on demand. An additional board will be created to hear cases for exemptions. 4) Legal provisions for the landlord to maintain his buildings, so even if there is a disincentive to not maintain buildings, he will be forced to 5) The moral intention of the benign rent stabilization is to make sure as many people get housing, but letting traditional livelihood have a greater precedence in determining where you live over money. Money however, is more powerful for new buildings or between 2 bidders who have never lived in that place before (such as old tenant moves out, and 2 new bidders want the house, money will have a greater say than how close one of the bidders lives to that place). So far I have heard 3 main arguments against rent control: 1) it disincentives new building constructions 2) it disincentivies landlords from maintaining their properties 3) it makes less people have housing I believe my benign rent control solves these problems. problem 1 and 3 are solved by solution 2, while problem 2 is solved by solution 4.
Rent Control is Bad, part 2

lol, no need to apologize. I'm taking this in an extremely informal fashion, so no harm done if this moves forward or drops. I'm glad we are reaching a convergence, as that would mean we are making forward progress on the issue.Regarding the definition of "rent control", in economic terms, the defining aspect of rent control is the price ceiling. It is through the price ceiling that rents are "controlled" by the government in such a manner that rents are invariably below market equilibrium price, leading to outsized demand and constrained supply. This price ceiling aspect leads to both affordability for the renter, as well as all of the negatives I discuss, namely lack of additional housing being built, and poor maintenance of existing housing.Therefore, to say that rent control is "limited" is to say that either the ceiling is not very low (i.e. it's close to equilibrium price already), or that it is not widely applied, as in your San Francisco example. Especially in the latter, that would mean that rent control largely does not apply to San Francisco real estate, especially when it comes to new housing. It's a near-concession that rent control, i.e. the price ceiling, simply does not work, since a significant portion of the city does not have a price ceiling on rents.What I see markets like San Francisco doing is establishing a "sliding price ceiling" that allows for slower adjustment to market rates. Since rents typically do not decline but only advance to accomodate for market movements, this is effectively a consumer protection advocacy stance. Regardless, much of San Francisco real estate is not pretty and poorly kept with only blighted areas subject to renovation, and IMHO rent control is more than likely responsible for such a condition.On your questions:1) On preferences, I think the weaker the rent control the better. I acknowledge that there's always going to be some government regulation or intervention, and that such intervention is good in limited quantities. However, when it comes to price-setting, I'd much rather have the market determine this the vast majority of the time.2) They are referring to the price ceiling specifically.3) Your argument is not a strawman...rather it is akin to talking about generalizations instead of specifics, like playing pool without understanding the physics behind it. I mean, I understand your arguments and they make a lot of sense. However, technically speaking, there are very, very few times where it's appropriate to pick up the cue ball, i.e. apply outside intervention, although the few times it does apply is typically welcome for both players.The main advantage to (especially limited) rent control for the landlord is that it leads to price stability, and thus a more predictable renter market. However, at a certain point, rent control makes a market "too predictable" and thereby "breaks" the game.
Rent Control is Bad, part 2

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I was on vacation. It seems at this point, we are close to reaching a convergence. Now it may become an argument of definitions, in this case, "rent control." I accept I may be wrong in my definition, but I am drawing it from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...): "Although the political debate over rent control is far-reaching, as described below, the purposes and provisions of such laws are intended to be limited in scope. They define which rental units are affected, and may have only larger or older rental complexes covered by the law. The frequency and degree of rent increases are limited, usually to the rate of inflation defined by the Consumer Price Index or to a fraction thereof. San Francisco, for example, allows annual rent increases of 60% of the CPI, up to a maximum 7%.[8] Unregulated rent increases may be allowed when a tenant moves ("vacancy decontrol"). Rent-control laws that don't include vacancy decontrol are called strong rent-control laws. Such laws were in effect in five California cities (West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Berkeley, East Palo Alto and Cotati) in 1996, when AB 1164 (known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act) made strong rent-control unenforceable in California (except in special cases like mobile home parks)." Here, you notice it says rent control are "intended to be limited in scope." Perhaps it is a failure in deduction, but since this provision was in the "rent control" page, I assumed it was a form of rent control. Secondly, the passage refers to Strong rent-control laws, implying there is a differentiation between the forms of rent control e.g. full rent control is just a type of system under the broad category of "rent control." Lastly, the argument supporting rent control in this page argue for the sort of controlled rent control I have been arguing for, and though this may be wrong, I assumed the PRO where not creating straw mans. Considering this, here are my questions to you: 1) Do you think "weak rent control," or if you prefer, "rent stabilization" is bad? 2) When mainstream economist argue against rent control, are they referring to full rent control, or the weak form I described as well? 3) If my argument is really a straw man, why are neoliberal economists recommending dismantling rent control rather than reforming it as I want?
Should Apple make a iphone make a iPhone 6

"they have different names therefore android is better"As subjective as this is, I disagree. The iPhone tells everyone it's primary function within the name, thus less confusion thus if name defines quality the iPhone is superior. Even if not superior, it would remain in Apple's interest to develop more iPhones to sell to the tech hungry market. (speaking of name confusion)"there is no use in making new iPhones 5"I concede this point, as the iPhone5 premiered in March [1]. This debate is focused on if Apple should invest in making the iPhone 6.Profit:Expanding on R1, last year Apple netted a gross $80.5 billion in revenue from iPhone sales.Sources:[1] http://www.apple.com... [2] http://www.idownloadblog.com...
Should Apple make a iphone make a iPhone 6

Argument:Apple as a business should continue to make newer iPhones. My reasoning follows below... Apple is a business. Businesses have an innate interest in making money. New iPhones are profitable. Therefore Apple should continue to make new Iphones. Further a competitive market keeps the technology in both phone types advancing at a faster pace, thus it's in the interest of Android users such as yourself for Apple to continue making new phones."then it will do the same thing as android"To my limited knowledge, they are both phones; already by nature doing the same thing.
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

the bottomline is that you have yet to show a miracle happening to atheists. something scientifically inexplicable that appears supernatural. what you have showed is... some people may wrongly perceive something miraculous, seeing without retinas using technicllogy. but this doesnt acccount for people who see without retinas and dont have technology as the reason. and you have shown that in theory it's very possible that there is a standard percentage of atheists and theists who have "miracles" happen to them. but you haven't show that it is true in reality, just in principal. examples examples, please. that's what I asked for, the standard here.
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called a miracle had it happened to a religous person, because of its scientifically inexplicable nature. no semantics pleas what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population) but I don't see these things happening to atheists. I see plenty of evidence from chrisitans and to a lesser extent other religious folks. but I don't see it from atheists etc, why is that? they might claim that it's just not as newsworthy or interpreted that way given the lack of religious context etc. but you'd think there's at least be noteworthy evidence, or something, at least, that shows it happens to atheists etc also, even if i acknowledged that they may occur, as a favor from God, it would be extremely very small percentage wise. as of now i'd be happy with just couple or a few examples.
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

I would like it noted that now the benchmark for the blindness miracle is "seeing without retinas w out technology." I'm that case Jesus himself couldn't perform as many miracles, he relied of "technology" when he heal the blind with mud and saliva, not electrical sure but I also presented an example of a biological cure as well! Also the token miracle finally cited would also not conform to a miracle, did you even read the article entirely? In the case of Jesse, of course it was prayer and not the dialysis, or anything doctors might have don't... even this example has technology in it. Not a miracle in your eyes. As far as the nun, you own source says that experts cast doubt on her actual recovery!! I used the bible because it seems you are so unable to look at reason I figured I'd turn your own faith based text and make it a suitable documentation of my side. But even your own book, the book you believe inspired by god himself was not a credible piece of evidence for you. If you won't except logic, reason, your own biblical text for proof.... what the hell am.I supposed to do? Please, vote for whoever you honestly think had better grasp of logic or reality... Miracles don't happen... it's the wrong interpretation of the events by the ingorant that want to label god as the reasons.
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

con says he presented two examples of miracles, but they were merely technology and people thinking they were miracles. clearly this isnt the burden of proof i asked for, something akin to an atheist seeing without retinas w out technology. there are tons of examples of miracles to theists, in previous debates i shown them. most credible people dont dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations. im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. but here's one, to throw you a bone. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... Because Pro neither clearly defined miracle (as I have), nor provided cited examples (as I have); I have only my definition, my examples and the brief undocumented basis of a miracle (from which I fleshed out in my examples) that was provided by Pro. you have now that miraclulous events happen to people, across the board in similar statistical fashion. youve shown that it could be that way, in theory. in reality, you can't find a single example of something that would be a miracle had it happened to a theist, that happened to an atheist. the bible is pretty weak for an atheist to cite given they dont belive in teh bible. also, you should be able to find examples from modern times, since that is what i asked for. i find examples for theists, you should be able to with atheists. plus there's no examinging the bible's claims if we are looking at it objectively, but we can modern claims. all the examples from the congregation of the saints undego scientific scrutiny. again credible people dont dispute that these things happen, that they are scientifically inexplicable, and that it sppears supernatual. for you to dispute it shows your lack of credbility. all i'm asking fo is that you show this stuff happening to atheists, and you haven't done it. that's the bottom line.
Gay Marriage

Yeah but that's not what this debate is about. . . . The purpose was to debate about why gay marriage should or shouldn't be legal. If you aren't going to take the side of the debate in which you've accepted, Please don't accept it at all next time, Just use the comments section to add whatever information you'd like to add. The side you've accepted was that of an anti gay marriage person, Next time just add a comment in the comment section.
Song debate

<. That's okay though. This last song is Dirty Little Secret by The All-American Rejects Let me know that I've done wrong When I've known this all along I go around a time or two Just to waste my time with you Tell me all that you've thrown away Find out games you don't wanna play You are the only one that needs to know [Chorus] I'll keep you my dirty little secret (Dirty little secret) Don't tell anyone, or you'll be just another regret (Just another regret, hope that you can keep it) My dirty little secret Who has to know When we live such fragile lives? It's the best way we survive I go around a time or two Just to waste my time with you Tell me all that you've thrown away Find out games you don't wanna play You are the only one that needs to know [Chorus] Who has to know The way she feels inside (inside)? Those thoughts I can't deny (deny) These sleeping thoughts won't lie (won't lie) And all I've tried to hide It's eating me apart Trace this life out I'll keep you my dirty little secret (Dirty little secret) Don't tell anyone, or you'll be just another regret (Just another regret) [Chorus] Dirty little secret Dirty little secret Who has to know? Who has to know? . http://songmeanings.com... Also I made a typo in my last argument. The source was . http://songmeanings.com...
Song debate

Here Without You by 3 Doors Down A hundred days have made me older Since the last time that I saw your pretty face. A thousand lies have made me colder And I don't think I can look at this the same. All the miles that separate Disappear now when I'm dreamin' of your face. I'm here without you baby But you're still on my lonely mind. I think about you baby and I dream about you all the time. I'm here without you baby But you're still with me in my dreams And tonight girl, it's only you and me. The miles just keep rollin' As the people leave their way to say hello I've heard this life is overrated But I hope that it gets better as we go. I'm here without you baby But you're still on my lonely mind. I think about you baby and I dream about you all the time. I'm here without you baby But you're still with me in my dreams And tonight, it's only you and me. Everything I know, and anywhere I go, It gets hard but it won't take away my love. And when the last one falls, when its all said and done. It gets hard but it won't take away my love. I'm here without you baby But you're still on my lonely mind. I think about you baby and I dream about you all the time. I'm here without you baby But you're still with me in my dreams And tonight, it's only you and me. . http://songmeanings.com...