BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cancer is good for the United States of America

My opponent did not refute my arguments, but instead, he provided arguments for a totally different definition of "cancer." However, I will prove why his arguments about cancer are totally invalid in this debate. -- Rebuttals -- • 1. The first post in Round 1 My opponent wrote at the beginning of the debate that "[he does] not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors." Already there, it is clear that he refers to cancer as something harmful, hence the mention of cancer victims and survivors. • 2. First post contradicts his second If you look at my opponent's post in Round 2, you will realize that he speaks of something positive, not negative. He said, "People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving, Intuitive and imaginative, Shrewd and cautious, Protective and sympathetic.These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America." How is this compatible with his statement in Round 1? At first, cancer is something you are a victim of, and suddenly, cancer is something positive that create intuitive, emotional, loving, imaginative, shrewd, cautious, protective, and sympathetic people. This is a contradiction, hence invalidating my opponent's arguments. • 3. I provided the first definition Since I was the one provided the first definition of "cancer", and he made absolutely no indications of any other definition of cancer, particularly not in the resolution, then it is for him to refute my arguments about my definition of cancer, and not come up with a new definition and evade all my points. • 4. His source contradicts his argument My opponent refered to a source[1] which is in conflict with his argument about his definition of cancer not being a disease, and only something positive. While his source does not directly state that it is a disease, it does mention that "Cancerians" are more liable to certain diseases: "Cancerians are said to be liable to breast cancer and to suffer from pleurisy, dropsy, piles and varicose veins. The excitability mentioned above can lead to weak digestion, gastritis and other stomach ills, and there is a tendency to coughs and weakness of vision." So even by using his definition, we can say that "cancer" is a bad thing for the United States of America. -- Conclusion -- My opponent turned the debate around, which is invalid. I came with the first definition, his first post referred to the disease called cancer, not some random, superstitious definition. -- References -- [1]http://www.astrology-online.com...
Cancer is good for the United States of America

--Definition-- Cancer: the fourth sign of the zodiac: the cardinal water sign. [1] This is not a disease (nor is it contagious). ---Refutations--- "565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths." (& all other points) Wrong, the 4th sign of the zodiac will not kill anyone, there is no evidence supporting that a zodiac symbol will destroy people. All your points are invalid. ---Arguments--- 1. Cancer Cancer, meaning "The Crab" is the 4th symbol in the zodiac calender. I will prove today, that this symbol benefits America. Individuals born when the Sun was in this sign are considered Cancerian individuals. Under the tropical zodiac, the Sun enters Cancer on the moment of summer solstice by definition, or roughly on June 21, leaving it around July 22. Under the sidereal zodiac, it is currently roughly from July 16 to August 15. 2. Positives People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving, Intuitive and imaginative, Shrewd and cautious, Protective and sympathetic. [2] These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America. Thank you for accepting this debate and I await the next round. ---Sources--- http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.astrology-online.com...
Cancer is good for the United States of America

I strongly disagree that cancer is good for the United States of America, and will make some arguments for my side, which is con. -- Definition -- Cancer: "An abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize (spread)."[1] It is not a contagious disease. -- Content -- • 1. Statistics • 2. Costs of Cancer • 3. Effect on People -- Arguments -- • 1. Statistics According to American Cancer Society[2], 565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths. According to the same source, an estimated number of 1,490 children from the age range of 0-14 years died due to cancer the same year. • 2. Cost of Cancer According to National Institutes of Health[3], a total of $228.1 billion was spent on cancer treatment in the year 2008. This number is ultimately high, and if it was reduced by even 50 percent, there would be more money for treatment of other diseases, and more money could actually be invested in research. It should also be noted that due to lack of proper health insurance in the United States, many people are unable to get treatment. • 3. Effect on People Cancer is a deadly disease, and affects a high number of people. Cancer can cause e.g. fatigue, which is excessive tiredness. Due to this, a person who suffers from cancer cannot live properly, and if he works, he cannot earn a living. This has a bad effect on the individual, a society, and the economy. I may elaborate this point in the next rounds. -- References -- [1]http://www.medterms.com... [2]American Cancer Society, http://www.cancer.org... [3]National Institutes of Health, http://www.nih.gov...
selfies cause cancer

I'm glad I get to debate a person with their wife as their profile picture, so let's go.You hurt my feelings with the comments about me being mentally retarded, but I will plough on regardless. Food can make you feel better [1], or even worse [2]. If the food makes you feel more happy, you'll have more of it because you want to be more happy like what you experienced before (and this cycle is started because the individual is in need of increased happiness). If the food makes you feel worse, you'll inevitably keep on eating. Either because you're depressed and want to be more depressed, or because you're more depressed and now are in even more need of happiness than before.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.webmd.com...[2] ibid
selfies cause cancer

http://www.bbc.co.uk...^ Selfies and body anxietyYes, you heard me. The newest fad of 'selfies' causes cancer, which is Ironic considering that some social media simpletons tried to cure cancer forever and ever recently by posting pictures of them online without any make-up on [1].Okay, so admittedly the article at the top only says that selfies increase body anxiety etcetera etcetera, but cancer is by definition the abnormal swelling of skin cells. Now, where there's anxiety and teenage girls, there's eating to feel better. This causes obesity, which is the extreme swelling of everything of the body, bar brain cells (which do the opposite, interestingly) but including skin cells.I'm pretty sure I'm the first person to document this type of cancer, so I'll name it GreedyLazyFacebook Cancer. I think it has a nice ring to it.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...;(Posting pictures to cure cancer)
selfies cause cancer

Ok these comments you've made are true but are not relevant to the selfie topic. The reason of people's anxiety is look like celebrities or their friends and eating food and becoming fat won't get you there. Also in the website YOU put in your entry states "The research, presented at a conference in Seattle, found no link with eating disorders." So even if the person is self conscious through looking at selfies they still do not develop eating disorder let alone cancer. My opponent never gave true evidence that taking selfies gives you cancer, most likely because you can't get cancer from taking seflies.
Agnosticism Is A Meaningless Position

My opponent clarifies what he meant by this debate, although I have indeed successfully debated the resolution already. In fact, I have also debated the very point my opponent says he meant to argue. His claim is that "Agnostic Atheist" is exactly the same as saying "Atheist." This is completely wrong. I concede that it is indeed impossible to know that there is no god without full knowledge of the universe. However, it is not impossible to THINK you KNOW that there is no god. Just as the non-agnostic theist falsely believes he or she KNOWS that there is a god, so too does a non-agnostic atheist falsely believe he or she KNOWS that there is no god. Therefore, there is a distinction between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic Atheist." "Atheist" includes people who think that they know there is no god. "Agnostic Atheist" does not include these people, since to be agnostic, you have to think that you do not [and cannot] know whether there is a god or not. Agnosticism isn't about whether you actually have knowledge or not. It's about whether you believe that you have knowledge, and whether you think it's even possible for you to have knowledge on the matter of god. Also, consider that vanilla agnostics exist as well, l people who are neither atheist nor theist [by some definitions]. This requires that we call atheism an explicit belief that there is no god, where theism is the explicit belief that there is. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 100%, then they are a non-agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is anything less than 100% and greater than 50%, they are an agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is exactly 50% [or does not know whether they think it's less than or greater than 50%], they are an agnostic, and not counted as an atheist or a theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is less than 50% but greater than 0%, they are an agnostic atheist. And finally, if someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 0%, they are a non-agnostic atheist. 100% and 0% chances represent thinking you know for sure whether there is a god or not. These are non-agnostic positions. "Agnostic atheist," as I showed last round and this round, is different than "atheist," since "atheist" includes the group of people who believe there is exactly 0% chance of god existing. And so it is that agnosticism is not a meaningless position, nor a meaningless label when combined with 'atheist.'
Agnosticism Is A Meaningless Position

I would like to apologize in advance for my confusion. I was aiming to argue that an agnostic atheist should be thought of as an atheist, and not with the agnostic addition added to it, or having agnostic as a position independent in itself. I realize that there are theists who believe to have full knowledge that God exists (despite how irrational this is). If my opponent wishes to point this out as a reason to vote against me, then by all means he can do so. I typed my opening argument in high speed (mom making me go to sleep) and realize my error. I have made the point that an atheist is one who lacks the belief in all the candidates of god proposed thus far. To be able to say with full knowledge that a supernatural entity can be proven to be nonexistent is to be able to say that one has infinite knowledge of the universe. I argue that atheists believe that no postulated deity exists, but for the possibly unmentioned an atheist has no warrant to say on the matter. By itself, agnosticism is about knowledge, not about belief. One can not will him/herself to not believe whether or not god exists. Our belief is based on the evidence supported, as much as theists want to say on the otherwise. We do not will ourselves to believe otherwise. At all, agnosticism would probably be only effective at discerning those who are ignorant and those who are not.
Agnosticism Is A Meaningless Position

Agnosticism is not a meaningless position. First, a semantics argument. My opponent himself already established at least two meanings of Agnosticism. Thus, it cannot be considered meaningless. However, I know what my opponent meant and will argue the actual issue here. My opponent claims that agnosticism is meaningless because it applies to everyone. Unfortunately for my opponent, there are many people to which Agnosticism cannot be applied. First, let us realize that agnosticism is not even a default position. Agnosticism is an _explicit_ belief that the issue of god is unknown [and impossible to know]. That means that every person who has not contemplated the issue of whether or not the existence/nature of God is known is automatically NOT an agnostic. One cannot have come to the conclusion that God is unknowable if one has not even considered the question. By this token, 0 babies are agnostics, as are many people who simply haven't bothered thinking about this issue. So there's some meaning to the term. It at least signifies that its bearer has contemplated the question of knowledge of god. Now, let me show you even more meaning. Consider that the term does not apply to whether you actually know about god or not, but whether you think it is possible to know. Just as a person who has not considered the issue is not an agnostic, neither is a person who THINKS that they have knowledge of God. Many people think they _know_ that God exists, and these people are not agnostic. I think at least myself and my opponent would agree that they are ignorant, but they are not agnostic. This furthers the meaning we can get from the label - not only does it signify that the bearer has contemplated the issue, but it also signifies that the person has come to the much more rational conclusion that he or she is not capable of knowing the truth about God. An agnostic atheist is an atheist who believes that he doesn't/can't know for sure whether a god exists, but he doesn't believe in any god. A non-agnostic atheist would be an atheist who not only doesn't believe in any gods, but also thinks that he or she KNOWS that there are no gods. An agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, but also believes that he or she cannot be certain about said beliefs. A non-agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, and also believes that he or she KNOWS that this god exists. So you see, agnostic is far from meaningless as a label. There's a world of difference between the agnostic atheist and the non-agnostic atheist, between the agnostic theist and the non-agnostic theist. A label with such significance is far from meaningless. I'm fairly certain I've now addressed the entirety of my opponent's points and made a strong case for my side of the resolution. I await my opponent's reply.
Agnosticism Is A Meaningless Position

[Definition - Agnostic] 1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. http://dictionary.reference.com... I affirm the resolution that Agnosticism is a meaningless position, for the main reason that it is applicable to everyone in the world. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief. Other positions, such as theism and atheism, are positions about belief. This is where you get terms such as agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, which basically translates to a person who holds that God exists/doesn't exist but does not know for certain. To make my argument more clear, I will argue that in essence, an agnostic atheist is really just an atheist, the agnostic addition is meaningless. [Definition - Atheism] 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... A problem in this ensuing debate of agnosticism vs. atheism, is the misunderstandings of each positions definitions. Now, though the dictionary definition of atheism is accurate, I want to make an important clarification. An atheist lacks the belief in all the deities that have been thus far presented as the real "god"; atheism rejects all these candidates. It does not mean that atheists know all the proposed gods do not exist, but we do not believe. There is still a remote possibility that gods such as Jesus and Krishna are real. Neither do atheists reject that a god exists in the universe that hasn't already been proposed. There may very well be a deity, and the only way to know it does not exist is to have infinite knowledge of the universe, and I'd love to meet an atheist who can claim to have that. One may know not know if proposition X is true, but they will either believe it is true or false. Are there a-FSMs and agnosti-FSMs? (FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster). Of course not, no one "holds their judgement" about the truth value of such a claim. If God is to be unfalsifiable through science, then there will always be that degree of uncertainty, and this why we do not know for sure if God exists or not, but we believe if he does or not. In summary, Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Atheism/Theism is a position about belief. The metaphysical claims about God are inherently not able to be known for certainty. This is why agnosticism is a meaningless label.
Animals are better friends than humans

The point with illustrating a replacement of human-friends with animals was to show that if you had to choose between either having one human friend, or one animal, the human would be the superior choice, making it better in a specific sense. None the less, my claim about humans being better than animals still stands, if you by friend want someone to communicate with and whom can help you develop, a pet stands no chance against a human. If by friend you mean someone who only comforts you and potentially increases your lifespan (which humans can too), then go for an animal, however I think most people want more. You ask: "Since when have animals lead humans to depression?" First of all, their short lifespans make them way more likely to die than your friend, which may make you depressed, so having a pet certainly can hurt you. However, even if I accept that for the sake of argument, I find it utterly similar to saying "school is bad because you can get bullied there." Sure, you could stay home from school and avoid the bullying, but who would you be as a person without the development and skills you get from learning things. Of course, in our society the consequences are quite drastic if you do not go to school, however, the principle is the same, it protects you from some potential harm, but leaves you undeveloped as a person. You mention friends voicing negative opinions, like its necessarily bad, when it may just contribute to making you into a better person. Now, if your "friends" are ruthlessly harassing you, then that is probably bad for you, but it would not be fair to call them friends at that point. You say: "friends don't always listen. Animals do." This is just false, in what sense do animals listen, if you mean that they observe the sounds which you emit, sure, as do friends. They have no clue about what your saying, and while they might be able to intuitively infer the general emotion from the sound of your voice, there is no way that they can actually help you like a friend could. You might as well cry in to a pillow. You don't always want to hear what a friend has to say, but many times you do. Its the same thing as the school example, you are not seeing the bigger picture.
Animals are better friends than humans

Ok, I'm not saying that you should replace all your friends with animals, I'm saying that they make better friends than humans, there's a difference. Also, you said that you can communicate with friends. EXACTLY. Friends will voice their opinions wherever, whenever. Even negative opinions. Since when have animals lead humans to depression? I'm not saying that all friends make your life horrible, but finding new friends isn't that easy. Not only this, but friends don't always listen. Animals do. Sure, they can't give their opinions, but do you always want to hear what your friend is going to say?
Animals are better friends than humans

To take the position of them being better friends, you must first accept a rather strange definition of what a friend is and what you want out of them. A few things one can not do with an animal (that you can do with humans): 1. Engage in intellectual discussions and an exchange of ideas 2. Ask for advice about how to deal with challenges in life 3. Laugh at their jokes and get intrigued by their stories (because they litterary can not tell any) Of course an animal can provide comfort, perhaps sometimes better than a human, yet it can not provide the things that we require to develop. I find it strange that the goal of a friendship would be to increase life-span or health (which can be done with humans as well, see below), and in return miss a lot of things that can make you in to a better, smarter, and more understanding person. A person who chooses a pet friendship over a human one, would, despite how fun it is to play with a pet, most likely find himself lacking a broader perspective of the world, as well as with undeveloped ideas, locked in the place because of their lack of external analysis. As to your argument that friends are one of the leading causes of stress, first of all, whilst there might be a correlation between the two, instead of replacing them with animals, you could actively seek to replace them with friends who do not make you feel this way, removing the negativity stress brings in to one's life, whilst keeping the positive attributes that humans have and animals lack. In addition to this, and perhaps even more importantly, a lack of friends (especially close ones) is related to all kinds of negativities, like lacking social skills, increased chance of chronic diseases at old age, as well as depression (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). If your sole goal with the friendship is to have someone to cuddle with and to potentially increase your life-span (which you can do with human friends as well), then go for a pet! If you instead want a friend with whom you can develop intellectually, who can teach you about life from a different perspective, and who you can socialize with in a huge variety of ways, then a human might be to suggest.
Animals are better friends than humans

Animals make better friends than humans because of statistics. Firstly, a study which followed 3.4 million people (with access to their medical history and pet ownership history) found that people with pets tend to have a better medical history and thus, a longer life span. Not only this, but watching fish swim has been proven many times to have various health benefits. Do friends do this? No. In fact, a study has shown that friends are one of the leading causes of stress, which certainly does not help your health or your life span. Thank you, and good luck.