BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is defensible.

Firstly ,I should thank you for accepting this challenge. The first argument is attacking abiogenesis, which is not what the debate is about, nor is it relevant to evolution. I provide an link if you do not know what abiogenesis is. http://en.wikipedia.org... The second argument thankfully, does try to attack evolution. The problem with that argument is that the second law of thermodynamics describes what happens to closed systems and neither earth or living things are closed systems. This link is where I got the information from. http://www.huecotanks.com... It Con's turn again.
Evolution is defensible.

I accept the challenge, with those rules. Also, please excuse me if my English is broken, it isn't my first language. First of all, I would like to complete the definition, by saying that this theory includes the idea that all the living organism on Earth share a common ancestor. Now, if we think about that ancestor, a single-cellular organism which reproduced itself, you'd have to ask yourselves : where did it come from ? This scientific theory says that randomly, a molecule was created that was able to reproduce itself (the definition of living) - please note that no experience has yet been able to reproduce such an event. Even worse, the second law of thermodynamics states that such a reaction would only occur spontaneously if the 'entropy', physical chaos, would increase because of the chemical reaction - however, a living molecule has to be pretty big, and creating a bigger molecule from smaller ones (such as the ones present in Earth's primitive oceans) reduces chaos.
Evolution is defensible.

In this debate, I will defend evolution from Con's various arguments . But first, I will provide an definition of Evolution. Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry. There will be 3 rounds with an maximum of 1,000 Characters. Here's the debate will look like. Round 1 - Acceptance and new arguments Round 2 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments Round 3 - Defense of your arguments, but no new arguments. Here is some rules for Pro and Con to follow. - No Semantic interpretations (For example, using the word theory in an way that means guess when you are suppose to use the scientific meaning of the word) - Please refrain from using the bible or any other holy texts to try disprove evolution. - You must know what the theory of evolution is. - The debaters follow the rules at all times. This should be obvious but I hope you enjoy the debate
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

"Can you describe a little about Admin fees, why are they so high?"I feel like I adequately did that in Rounds 1 and 2."Administration is not only necessary but critical too..."I didn't talk about admin fees as a whole. See Round 2 where I cite estimated 85% of admin costs are due to complex insurance system."Your argument suggests that if there were no Insurance Companies the Doctors would be charging $50..."26% savings equals approx $2000 per capita annually. That's $8000 for a family of 4, which is pretty significant. "Insurance companies protects patients and doctors from all the bickering and bargaining."I'd rather do it myself and save $2000 than pay an insurance company to do it for me."the Insurance companies are 'fighting' with the Doctors over the fees and trying to reduce those."As would anyone. However, because they are an intermediary, it always drives up costs. You are paying someone else to provide a service. Any good middleman will ensure they get their cut."Insurance companies also makes it fair for everyone."I disagree with this statement. The most fair system is we each pay for what we consume. Thus, if I go to hospital, I pay for my own hospital expenses. If I'm a young, healthy person in my twenties, why should I pay for health insurance when I ever see a doctor?(1)I want to first thank Andy for creating this topic and engaging me in a fun debate. However, in my opinion, Pro did not effectively argue why doctors are the reason for high medical costs. As with all complex systems, one cannot ever really pin the entire blame on one group but I have presented several reasons why I believe insurance companies represent a large chunk of medical costs incurred by medical providers and, thus, passed down to consumers. Also, 2k characters is too short. I ran out of room often and apologize if my arguments did not seem fully developed. Vote Con!(1) http://www.forbes.com...
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

I agree there are Administrative Fees (like every other business out there) but to put the blame solely on that is turning a blid eye to the real issue. It applies to Law firms, Financial firms or any other business that interacts with other entities. Can you describe a little about Admin fees, why are they so high?Administration is not only necessary but critical too, to maintain the quality of service and faster processing. That's why a doctor is able to see so many patients in one day. If you go to a Physicians office or a Specialist, normally there is one admin office for 3-4 doctors so that way they cut their admin expenses smartly. It can be reduced further but to highlight that as your main point is deceptive.Your argument suggests that if there were no Insurance Companies the Doctors would be charging $50 for a 10min checkup (unlike $300) and everyone will go home happy. I don't think so. The doctors would still be charging pretty much the same and a lot of their time and patient's time would be spend in arguing over the fees and charges. Insurance companies protects patients and docors from all the bickering and bargaining.Also if you look at your Insurance Company Claim, you will see that the doctor charged $400, but the Insurance company adjusted to a lower amount, lets say $300 and then they pay most of it. So the Insurance companies are 'fighting' with the Doctors over the fees and trying to reduce those. If they didn't exist an 80yr old granma would have to do that !!Insurance companies also makes it fair for everyone, if youve been paying into the system you will get the benefits. You can't just 'use' hospitals and doctors without paying nothing.
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

I believe the debate topic is "The problem is doctors fees, not insurance." I'm arguing that fees are high due to insurance, not doctors, thus the problem is insurance, not doctors, taking a Con to the topic.Premise 1: It is currently estimated that 31% of health care spending is towards administrative costs.(1) It is estimated that 85% of excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the complex insurance system.(2) Basically, if we eliminated insurance companies, and relieved health care providers of the burden of insurance management, it could reduce medical costs by over 26% or about $2000 savings per capita/year.Premise 2: The money has to come from somewhere. The vast majority of hospitals and health centers are non-profit(3), meaning they cannot seek profit from services. So when they need to recoup the government insurance that underpays, it has to come from somewhere. This is not about fault, but Econ 101.Premise 3: Sorry this was unclear. I ran out of words. What I was trying to do was tie the shortage of doctors to the increasing hostile and complex environment of the medical field. Those who remain are fighting further bureaucratization.(4) It's not always by choice either as insurers choose winners and losers.(5)The high cost of health care is not due to DOCTOR's fees but higher ADMINISTRATIVE costs, making up for GOVERNMENT programs, and a HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT that discourages joining the medical field. INSURANCE companies is the primary factor for my three premises.(1) http://www.pnhp.org...(2) http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...(3) http://www.nonprofithealthcare.org...(4) http://reason.com...(5) http://online.wsj.com...
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

You are actually making my arguments !! Since you provided reasons for exorbitant fees, you have admitted that Doctors' fees are very high. We can go into reasons why they are high, but bottom line is that everyone agrees they are too much. Premise 1 : Yes the administrative costs are high but so are administrative costs of doing all other kind of business. Same with auto insurance or mortgage, loans etc. Premise 2 : Yes Medicaid reimbursement is problematic but thats a government problem. Why should hard working Americans pay Doctors for Government incompetency? Is it the fault of a person with a job who goes to the hospital for some checkup?Premise 3 : I said that myself that we need more doctors because right now it feels like they have a monopoly and can charge as much as they like without worrying about competition.I am surprised why we don't hear people who have been to hospitals and doctors and were charged hundreds of dollars for 10mins.TIME magazine made the same argument (they are the only ones to say it publicly, besides me) - http://content.time.com...
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

Hi. I accept the debate and will argue that, while the cost of medical fees are exhorbitantly high, it is because of insurance that causes such a high rate. Premise 1: Extreme overhead to process claims and reimbursements by health care agents (both providers and insurers)The estimate of administrative costs in 2007 was $156 billion, with projections to reach $315 billion by 2018.(1) Also, due to the increasing complexity of the medical billing and insurance environment, the American Medical Association, in 2011, estimates "health insurers have an average claims-processing error rate of 19.3%, an extra $1.5 billion in unnecessary costs.(2) Costs are passed to us.Premise 2: Public insurance raises costs by underpaying health care providersPublic insurance programs such as Medicaid reimburse so little that 1/3 of doctors won't take new Medicaid patients in 2011.(3) On average, Medicaid pays physicians 56% the amount private insurers pay.(4) Costs are passed to the rest of us. Premise 3: Less Health Care Providers (supply/demand)U.S. medical schools have not provided for the loss of 33 percent of the nation’s physician work force.(5) In October 2012, the Association of American Medical Colleges published a report titled "Recent Studies and Reports on Physician Shortages in the US."(6) Just about every state will continue physician shortages and increases in not only health care costs but doctor salary as well. It is simple supply and demand economics.(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2) http://www.ama-assn.org...(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com...(5) http://www.healthleadersmedia.com...##(6) https://www.aamc.org...
The real problem is Doctors Fees, not Insurance !

Everyone blames the insurance companies for such high rates, but the real culprit is Doctor fees and Hospital charges. Next time you go to a Doctor, Specialist or Hospital, just look at the actual bill. They charge you $400 for 10mins of their time. And you don't even get to argue with them on the bill, you can't negotiate. On top of that, they never tell you the cost upfront, they tell you after the doctor has seen you. Why is nobody talking about the exorbitant fees? Who decides how much they can charge? Look at the list highest paying jobs, top 10 would be all doctors and medical specialists. The same doctor visit in other countries would cost a fraction so why in US the cost is so high?
lobbyist

today i would like to debate on whether or not we actually need lobbyists in this country. it is in my personal opinion that lobbyists are just legalized bribers and should be stopped. I feel that lobbyists are unconstitutional and moraly wrong. 1. their checks constantly draw the governments attention away from the american people and points them in the directions of special intrest groups, corps, and the richest of the rich. it is sick and entirely un american the first round shall be just stating your believes. the second and third will be arguments let the blood battle begin lol.
Miracles do not violate science

"Scientific laws are only assumed true through repetition." Miracles are violations of scientific laws though. They can't be explained through the laws of nature. I don't even know why this is an argument here. Isn't this just god of the gaps stuff? What does it have to do with miracles? "So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws at our "best guess" of what we know about the universe. In this respect, we realize that miracles cannot violate science, because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries." Science, when it changes things, reaches for new or updated laws, not "Whelp, God did it." Science is the study of natural laws not supernatural ones. "if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves." A definition of something does not mean it exists. Otherwise dragons would exist. (Unicorns too! There isn't anything keeping them from existing.) You haven't given any examples of true miracles so this argument is invalid. Just assuming they exist violates science itself. I might as well say that, sense magic, by definition, is possible wizards must exist. Because my opponent hasn't upheld his BoP, and just dismissed my argument showing the contradictions of natural laws and supernatural occurrences instead of actually attacking them I urge a Con vote.
Miracles do not violate science

The BoP is on Pro. It is Con's job to rebut the arguments put forth in Round 2 rather than violate the boilerplate and put forth his argument made in Round 1. Even if that were not the case, I would not have had anything to rebut because Con has made no valid arguments and has only stated that the definition of a miracle "clearly violates science" without supporting any evidence or real argument for it.
Miracles do not violate science

By doing this it is now harder for him to win, so I would advise him to be careful about what he accepts to. My opponent states that the definition of a miracle "clearly violates science" but has not shown how. How do miracles violate science simply because they do? Main ArgumentsScientific laws are only assumed true through repetition. No finite number of attempts can show that a law is applicable for every case in the universe. For example, long before Australia was discovered, it was believed in the West that all swans in the world were white. But when Europeans landed in Australia, they saw, for the first time, a black swan. What was considered a scientifically violable truth before had to be withdrawn. Let's look at another example. When Newton published his laws about the universe, they were regarded as incontrovertibly true for almost two centuries. They worked very well, and were endorsed as unrefutable. Then, Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton. Despite common belief, Newton's laws were proved in important ways to be wrong or at least inadequate. However, these laws could be, in the future, proved erroneous yet again. By this we learn that Einstein's theories have the capability to be proved wrong and are therefore, not completely true, but our "best guess". So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws at our "best guess" of what we know about the universe. In this respect, we realize that miracles cannot violate science, because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries. In his book What's So Great About Christianity, D'Souza writes that "scientific laws are not 'laws of nature. ' They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary. "[1] By this we determine that "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. "[2] does not violate the assumed laws of science. Another contention I have is that: if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves. Sources1. D'Souza, Dinesh. What's so Great about Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub. , 2007. Print.2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Miracles do not violate science

This is the definition of science. "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Your definition of miracle that was posted in the comments "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause." clearly violates science. "ascribed to a supernatural cause." is pretty much the opposite of "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Natural vs. supernatural. Ascribed vs. observation and experimentation. Definition from Oxford: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
Shia Labeouf has done a poor job of motivating people.

I'm making this a short debate because it's meant to be funny and entertaining, and I could use a good laugh. I'll try not to be to try-hard over this debate, since it's meant to be funny, but here goes.Background: It's no doubt that many people know who Shia Labeouf is. He appears as the main character in three of the Transformers movies, Indiana Jones, and few other movies that haven't gained as much popularity. Recently, a video featuring Shia has been floating around on the internet that involves him croutching, bending his arms, and putting his palms towards his crotch and yelling, "DO IT! JUST DO IT!"The intent for this speech is entirely to motivate, instead, the internet has taken it and made a massive joke about it.Rules:This is a funny debate, so there are really no constraints, just have fun.Round 1 is for acceptance. We both have one round to present our case.
Shia Labeouf has done a poor job of motivating people.

Pro says that the movie I brought up was no more than entertainment. But why does that matter? entertaining activities can teach us many life lessons. Such as binge drinking(Great example). Pro also says that the movie was not meant to be viewed as motivational, but that is merely his subjective opinion. For some people this could be motivational. What could shoving a cube into a metal robot make us do? That is your perspective, what i see is his pure determination to shove a cube into a giant evil robot's chest. Pro says that me running an extra lap in my local gym does not mean everyone will get motivated to swim across the Atlantic. Why swimming across the Atlantic? That statement did not make very much sense in the context of his previous statement. The point of Shia Lebeouf's motivational video is to Motivate people to do what their specific goal's are. If swimming across the Atlantic is one of them for some strange snowflake than yes this would motivate that individual to do so. What the motivational video is actually for is not important. What is important is the actual content of the video and what the viewer will perceive. And the common viewer will most likely view this as a motivational video. To pro: No problem :D i'm having fun and as long as you are this will be mutually entertaining. I do these fun debates to gain experience and what you are doing is perfect. Please continue.
Shia Labeouf has done a poor job of motivating people.

Welcome to the site! I'm glad that I'm your first debate. I'm no professional, as I've only had about 9 debates, myself, but I'll be happy to give you some pointers over PM if you want them later. That said, I'll post my response now.Con would have you believe that Shia Lebeouf is an excellent motivator. They will tell you about his motivational and inspirational actions done in movies like Transformers. While I concede this is true, this was also done for the sake of viewing. The movies my opponent brings up were meant for nothing more than entertainment. They were NOT meant to be viewed as motivational, because what could shoving the All-Spark into the chest of a giant evil robot overlord make you want to do? Go into space, find a giant cube, piss off an alien race, and then have your life put on the line to shove said cube into a chest cavity?However, the purpose of Shia Lebeouf's motivational speech was for EXACTLY, that purpose. To motivate the masses. Now,while it may be true that Con was motivated to run an extra lap in the gym, that by no means means that the rest of the viewers of the video had the sudden urge to swim the Atlantic. Instead, Shia's video has been spread across the Internet, not for motivation, but for hilarity. [1] [2] [3] [4].In fact, this small skit is actually part of a much larger video [5]. A little bit of facts for those unaware, source number 5 is not just the motivational speech. In fact, the video is actually Shia performing 36 different pieces, each one written by an individual student from the London Arts school. In essence, it's a graduation project [6]. So the entire thing is scripted, and not even meant to truly motivate. The project's idea is to show emotion through speech.It is for all of these reasons provided that I ask that the judges consider all of the evidence given, and to please vote Pro.To Con: Sorry for being a bit of a try-hard for a fun debate. I tried my best to make a few quips here and there, but in the end, I guess my prim and proper side came out. Sorry. And thanks again for letting me be your first debate. Good luck. ^^1 - "Shia TED Talk."2 - "Damn it, Shia."3 - https://www.youtube.com... "Shiawalker Inspirational."4 - https://www.youtube.com... "I'm sorry Shia, I'm afraid I can't let you do that."5 - 6 - http://www.theguardian.com...
Shia Labeouf has done a poor job of motivating people.

Shia lebeouf is and always has been an excellent motivator. Seeing him put the allspark into megatron's chest even though he was just a weak human being was one of the most brave events i have ever seen. And with his new motivation video. It just shows how committed he is to making people feel like they can JUST DO IT. I was able to run an extra lap in the gym while listening to his amazing speech.