BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

Chemotherapy is arguably the best treatment that can be used to cure cancer. In fact, on average, it cuts the death rate from cancer in half! Chemotherapy does come with a variety of side effects. However, people often do not realize that every single one of these side effects(aside from hair loss, usually) can come from cancer as well! Chemotherapy has also improved over the years and, in that time period, the amount of side effects caused from the treatment have been greatly reduced. Natural cures simply do not work. Many advocates of the "natural cancer cure" movement argue that chemotherapy causes terrible side effects, while natural cures don't. Any patient believing this notion will have his/her beliefs reinforced when, after that patient is taken off of chemotherapy, the patient begins to feel better and does not experience any side effects. However, this change doesn't last. The cancer patient winds up trying to beat cancer solely with a healthy lifestyle and, after a while, starts to experience the same side effects caused by cancer along with other, worse symptoms, and ultimately dies. Cancer simply cannot be beat solely using natural cures. I'm not saying natural stuff is bad for cancer. In fact, I would encourage an educated person that knows what he/she is doing to continue living a healthy lifestyle and use natural methods(as long as they are educated about them) as long as they also continue or begin undergoing treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation. And, yes, chemotherapy does destroy some natural rapidly growing cells of the body along with cancer cells. However, it's important to ask "Is it more important to live feeling good for a while and then die, or feel bad for a while and have a much greater chance at living?" With this I conclude my arguments for Round 2, and look forward to hearing from the Con. Sources: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org... https://gizmodo.com... https://www.mskcc.org... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org...
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

Without money there's no way for the government of a nation to assign a value to an item.So if they need more engineer's, as there are in Britain required, they will have to increase salary for engineering and increase it relative to others. If there is an overflow of doctors then they must decrease salary for new doctors.There is simply no genuine way to determine if an apple Mac or a sh*tty little windows computer is worth more (I'm talking Mac book pro lion edition versus windows 98 old school laptop). Thus, there's no drive or motivation to produce anything in high quality.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

I'm going to be arguing the PRO for this one. Guidelines: I don't want this to be a "debatey" kind of debate. Please don't use phrases like "extend through the flow" or "card. " I'd like this to be a very relaxed discussion between two individuals regarding a theory I'd had a while ago. I won't lie: I have a short attention span. Please try to keep your points as concise as possible. Keep in mind, there is a 24 hr limit on response time. Structure: This is a 5 round debate. The first round should provide a brief outline of the points that you will be arguing. The second round should expand on those points and respond briefly to the opponent's points. After that, it's a free for all until the debate is over. Questions may be asked at any time. My vision of an "Ideal Society": my opponent can feel free to define "Ideal Society" as he or she pleases, as long as it's within reason. My vision of an "Ideal Society" is one in which people use their varied talents to operate on a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" basis. For example, an architect builds a house for a baker who thanks him by providing oodles of delicious pastry for him and his family. Obviously it can't always be that simple, but that's the basic idea of what we're going for. My points: 1) Many people will inevitably be defined by their salaries 2) The ratio of contributions-to-you-fellow-man to reward is inaccurate at best and completely skewed at worst. 3) the notion of money supports greed. Moreover, it uses the natural human trait of greed to keep others down rather than sustain an ever growing society. 4) similar to point 2, the hardness with which you work does not correspond to the reward you get.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

Before I begin my closing statement I shall list all uncontested contentions that I have raised throughout debate and my opponent completely failed to either address or successfully refute."Without money there's no way for the government of a nation to assign a value to an item.""If they (the people of a nation under a government) need more engineer's, as there are in Britain required, they will have to increase salary for engineering and increase it relative to others. If there is an overflow of doctors then they must decrease salary for new doctors.""There is simply no genuine way to determine if an apple Mac or a sh*tty little windows computer is worth more (I'm talking Mac book pro lion edition versus windows 98 old school laptop). Thus, there's no drive or motivation to produce anything in high quality.""Without the middleman of money a truly inefficient system arises.""There is simply no universal trading means, such as money, in the proposed system and thus it's so ridiculously impractical to impose.""So unless one works for the company that makes the good (for example Apple) they then cannot purchase the god (the Mac). This is obviously going to fall flat on its face because there would be no way to make profit and thus no motivation to hire workers in the first place.""Now, the only professional skill of a pornstar is to act in a porno (assuming this is their full time, only, job). So the only thing they'd have to trade for something as frequently bought and needed as groceries would be their ability to have sex in front of a camera.Quite frankly, to force them to do something as tiring as this, outside of their job, on top of all the porn they'd be doing for paying off things like their internet, electricity and gas bills is on the verge of sexual slavery."All these points were left conceded to or completely unaddressed throughout the debate.In pro's closing round they request me to give " a more fundamental closing argument explaining why exactly money is necessary. Why would it not work for a pornstar to simply make a sizable amount of porn and then go to the store to receive the shopkeeper's services (groceries) as well as internet, TV, etc?"I have only got a few hundred characters left and will keep it concise.It's really simple. If the company leaders of all available grocery stores and/or gas, oil, internet, water or electricity corporations of the area of the pornstar are either ethically opposed to porn or simply find the pornography that person produces disgusting then they can't have these basic needs.Let's be realistic now.Two people both produce pastries, one produces pastries tell me now how it's fair that one can give one pastry to a company who loves pastries for a whole Mac but the other has to give 4000 because they happen to be in a bad mood at the time of asking? No set price, no fairness.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

the main problem with my opponent's argument is that he jumps to conclusions that don't exist. He (or she, I'm not really sure) immediately assumes that a pornstar would have to produce hours upon hours of porn just to get along in a non-monetary society. This isn't necessarily the case. Instead of focusing on specific instances in which a non-monetary society can be perverted to the point of slavery, I'd like to see a more fundamental closing argument explaining why exactly money is necessary. Why would it not work for a pornstar to simply make a sizeable amount of porn and then go to the store to recieve the shopkeeper's services (groceries) as well as internet, TV, etc? What I'm talking about is building a society off the natural goodwill and camaraderie of human beings. One may be tempted to call that a childish fantasy and that people are just morally bankrupt at their core, but if you look at how our society is structured, people only act like jerks because it means making a lot of money. That's what it's all about. Money. What if, instead of putting all our time and effort into making money, we put that effort into helping others. An economy based on friendship. Call me a romantic, but I think it's very achievable with only one step: the elimination of the notion of "money. "
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

Pro claims that they are "not saying the shopkeeper forces the pornstar to make a porno for him in exchange for groceries."Yet when I requested them to further expand on how their system worked they stated that "instead of using money to exchange goods, we just exchange the goods (and services) straightaway." Now, the only professional skill of a pornstar is to act in a porno (assuming this is their full time, only, job). So the only thing they'd have to trade for something as frequently bought and needed as groceries would be their ability to have sex in front of a camera.Quite frankly, to force them to do something as tiring as this, outside of their job, on top of all the porn they'd be doing for paying off things like their internet, electricity and gas bills is on the verge of sexual slavery.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

again, a misunderstanding arises. I'm not saying the shopkeeper forces the pornstar to make a porno for him in exchange for groceries. I'm saying the shopkeeper does his job because he likes selling groceries. The pornstar does his because he likes having sex in front of a camera. Everyone recieves the fruits of everone else's labor as well as their own. A perfect society, no? Certainly not slavery.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

So unless one works for the company that makes the good (for example Apple) they then cannot purchase the god (the Mac). This is obviously going to fall flat on its face because there would be no way to make profit and thus no motivation to hire workers in the first place.If you don't replace money with pastries what will you replace it with? With what can a lower class worker buy the Mac? Money? That doesn't exist. Pastries? Long gone rotten. Sex? How much sex would one have to give in order to gain the laptop?You're really suggesting exchanging a good or service on the spot for the others good or service. While it's cute to think that a porn star would be willing to do whatever amount of sex is required of him/her on the spot for a good or service do you really want to force them to use their only professional talent to buy something as simple as groceries or water? Money allows them to do what they do for a 'middle ground' good that then is traded for what they want later on. It is the lubricant of the economy, the catalyst of trade.Without money, the most inefficient and unjustifiable system of all arises: One where there is no way for a porn star to get food or water without using her talents for whatever the shopkeeper says to use them for. This is slavery at its finest.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

My arguments are being misunderstood. I'm not suggesting we replace money with pastries. That, I agree, would also be woefully inefficient (although I wouldn't mind working for pastries :P). I'm saying instead of using money to exchange goods, we just exchange the goods straightaway. The aforementioned 18yr old wouldn't work hours on end for a company like mcdonalds or whatever in exchange for money with which he would buy his mac, he'd work at apple and be paid with a mac. Then, he could expand his horizons and work somewhere else in return for other goods. Not a bad life, if you ask me. Just to re-affirm, I am *NOT* saying that money should be replaced with pastries. I'm saying money should be eliminated straightaway, so I'd be interested in other arguments you can make that don't assume people would be paid only pastries to teach. There wouldn't be a "pastries per hour" system.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

I think that I will answer the proposed rebuttals/questions one by one. "Why, instead of directly rewarding one action (creating a higher quality laptop than all the rest) with another (giving the laptop maker some sort of good or service you specialize in) do we contrive this inefficient middleman?"The point is that the middleman isn't inefficient. It's a common ground on which everyone can trade. An eighteen year old who has just become an adult wants to buy a Mac. They work endlessly on a job that pays them as few pastries per hour as is legally allowed and eventually have saved up enough to buy one. Now they go to the shop selling the Mac and ask to buy it, the shopkeeper says "Dude, I don't like chocolate pastries and half of your pastries are rotten, you must have been paid them months ago!" now what the heck should he do? Do you really want him to be selling the pastries he is paid on top of doing his 12 hour shift job in order to get something worthwhile to trade? The inefficiency of the middleman is nonexistent, for without the middleman of money a truly inefficient system arises."There is definitely a motivation to produce something in high quality with the non-monetary system. If you don't make the best laptop, nobody will want to give you their pastries in exchange for your laptop."Firstly, Apple has to pay all of its workers across the world who not only may not want pastries but also might be half way across the world from the retail store and the pastries would be rotten by the time it got to them. There is simply no universal trading means, such as money, in the proposed system and thus it's so ridiculously impractical to impose."I would argue that money inhibits the motivation to produce in high quality. If you make something with slightly worse quality than another product, but market it 10x as well, it's guaranteed to sell. "The exact same issue would exist in a non-monetary system. Advertising leads to brainwashing regardless of the means of trade."If the notion of money was eliminated, only a genuine love of education and a desire to enrich the minds of the nation's youth would be left."False. Your system means that the love of 'pastries' and the number of them per hour would be the new motivation."People like Mr. O'Leary wouldn't be so inclined to do something as immoral as that if there was no profit in it."What if Chinese workers required less 'pastries' than Americans? Same issue.
The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

But why does money have to be the motivating factor? Why, instead of directly rewarding one action (creating a higher quality laptop than all the rest) with another (giving the laptop maker some sort of good or service you specialize in) do we contrive this inefficient middleman? There is definitely a motivation to produce something in high quality with the non-monetary system. If you don't make the best laptop, nobody will want to give you their pastries in exchange for your laptop. In fact, I would argue that money inhibits the motivation to produce in high quality. If you make something with slightly worse quality than another product, but market it 10x as well, it's guaranteed to sell. Without money, all that's left is a genuine desire to see the technological world expand. In terms of your first point, I think looking at the situation for educators in America can shine some light upon why eliminating money would help in that respect as well. Teachers, simply put, are drastically underpaid (and I'm not talking about state school professors. Those guys are overpaid). I and many of my friends have openly said that we would definitely become teachers (for which there is a drastic need) if only their salary was substantial enough to support a decent life. If the notion of money was eliminated, only a genuine love of education and a desire to enrich the minds of the nation's youth would be left. Simply put, the non-monetary system provides just enough incentive for people to work for their wealth and also allows for fair treatment of people in all fields. Also, I'd like to pick your brain about the idea of "individual success. " I was watching "Shark Tank" the other day, and multi-millionaire Keven O'Leary said something along the lines of "I won't do business with you unless you move production from America to China. " Doing so would be far cheaper than American production, but would detriment both the lives of American workers who are now without the manufacturing jobs and Chinese laborers who work under severely unfair conditions to create the product. People like Mr. O'Leary wouldn't be so inclined to do something as immoral as that if there was no profit in it. Instead, his decision would be based on the welfare of his fellow man because, simply, that's all that there is left.
a thought to support gods existence

I am glad my opponent made it back to submit his final round. However, since my opponent has forfeited that last round, I reserve the right to make new arguments this round. Upon responding to my notion that God created a universe purely to watch us choose something we didn't really have to choose, purely for God's entertainment, my opponent merely states that he thinks God cares about us. First of all, my opponent's argument is not very convincing. The majority of people on this earth sleep about 8 hours a night. Does God do the same? We cannot apply ourselves onto God, even if the activity is the same. Second of all, this point, as well as the point of agency is irrelevant. The point I am making is that I find it hard to believe that a supreme creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omipresent, and omnibenelovent, would forgo alternative A for alternative B. A: All his creation performs pure good by default, are eternally happy, and everyone is happy. B: All his creation is tested with mindgames in the guise of "free will", and the only purpose of free will is to obtain true happiness in the form of choosing good. The problem is the bottom line. The only thing you should do is choose good. My opponent speaks of a magnificent ability to choose between God and Satan, Good and Evil. If dinner serice offers you a choice of steak or poison, is that really any better than just offering you steak? There is nothing beneficial about agency or free will in this context. Agency is completely meaningless because the choice does not represent a true choice. "Steak or poison" is not any better than just "steak". God is well within his means to simply offer us the only choice that we should take, and my opponent has not made any argument otherwise. My opponent says that agency is important because it allows us the chance to avoid living unhappily with the devil. You know what an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should do instead? Remove the option entirely! So yes, to get back to the resolution, my opponent's argument that God did not cause evil is irrelevant. God created a universe in which evil exists. He was not forced to do it for our sake, God *chose* to do it. He put the priority of our free will over the priority of a universe in which evil does not exist. My opponent's arguments did not affirm the resolution that his "thought" is valid. He did not support any of his ideas. Even if God let evil exist due to wanting us to have free will, a choice between steak and poison does nothing for us. Free will is a perverse curse in the guise of a gift. The resolution is negated.
a thought to support gods existence

I am extremely sorry for my absence but I had some rather unexpected and important issues to attend to these last few days. "My opponent suggests that God, in order to satisfy this mindgame, has decided to create a universe where evil is rampant, just so that he can watch a fraction of his creation choose good over evil." On this I have something to say. (obviously) We on this planet are barely a pinprick of his creation. However I would argue that he still does care about us. I like to make models. And i care about evry piece of the model I created. I take my time to make sure ever part of my model is as good as it can be. SO why would god not care about us even though we are so small? after all he did create us. "There is no reason why this free agency is important. I cannot live forever, nor can I breathe underwater, fly in the air, sling web, run with super-speed, or move things with my mind. There are restrictions on free agency purely from creation. What makes the agency to choose between good and evil so important for humans? Nothing. It only matters to God. The entertainment of an allegedly benevolent god, whose benevolence must now be called into question." Why is free agency so important? It is important because it is part of the foundation of the reason why we are here. We are here to choose that is an important word, to choose between good or evil. To choose between either god or Satan. As for living forever it could be argued that we do live after death which is when we will be judged. As for the other abilities he mentioned I will be the first to say that I would love to have those and I think it would be great if we did. But I would also say that if we had those then we would all imagine even greater things and then wish for those. so the line had to be drawn somewhere and why not where it is now? It could be a lot worse. So, the importance of agency to us and to god. It is important to us so tat we don't have to live unhappily (to say the east) forever with the devil or it is important to use so that we CAN live happily with our god. Now think of this, we are all gods children so in essence he is our father. As our father he wants us to return to him. He wants us to be hap for eternity. But we have to choose. Him or Satan.
a thought to support gods existence

My opponent argues that it is God's main goal to have humans choose, of their free will, between good and evil. However, this does nothing to defend his position. I maintain that if he so chose, God could have easily created a universe in which all is good, man is perfect, and there would be absolutely no evil. My opponent suggests that God, in order to satisfy this mindgame, has decided to create a universe where evil is rampant, just so that he can watch a fraction of his creation choose good over evil. This is nothing more than a selfish act. God's entertainment from watching his creation choose good through massive suffering, rather than simply creating a universe that is all good to begin with, takes priority over the well-being of his creation. There is no reason why this free agency is important. I cannot live forever, nor can I breathe underwater, fly in the air, sling web, run with super-speed, or move things with my mind. There are restrictions on free agency purely from creation. What makes the agency to choose between good and evil so important for humans? Nothing. It only matters to God. The entertainment of an allegedly benevolent god, whose benevolence must now be called into question. Thank you.
a thought to support gods existence

The problem of evil is not necessarily solved by my opponent's assertion that evil is simply the lack of goodness. Even if God did not create evil, God still created the universe in a way that allows evil to exist. Since God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it would be well within the realm of possibility for God to simply create a universe where evil is not possible and only good is. Since there are many more rounds, I will allow my opponent to clarify his arguments before continuing. Thank you.