BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SSRIs/SNRIs should never be prescribed without a warning of P.A.N.E.S.

Thank you, too, for responding to my argument. I'm getting used to the civility here on this site; it's much different than debating on Reddit, lol. In response to your first question, there are no concrete numbers; mostly mountains of anecdotal evidence that continues to accumulate exponentially. As examples of anecdotal evidence online, you skim through this thread: http://www.drugs.com... It consists of a whopping 436 pages. That is huge, and it's not even a blanket thread concerning all SSRI/SNRI withdrawal; it's focused on one, Escitalopram. It consists largely of posts made by people suffering PANES because of ignorant physicians. If you skim through it, you can find people victimized by PANES even though they titrated by what their doctor's think is a responsible amount. I think the following quote sums up the main reason it is so easy to put down PANES as merely an underlying illness: "The withdrawal syndrome complicates the evaluation of patients after drug discontinuation since both patients and physicians often interpret the onset of symptoms as an upsurge of "anxiety" related to incipient relapse, and resume treatment with the gratifying subsidence of the "anxiety". This may cause both patients and physicians to overvalue the importance of the medication to the patient"s stability". (1) In response to your second question: I don't think there are any studies on this. However, it's common knowledge that SSRIs are typically first-line treatment for any depression or anxiety disorder. This strongly suggests doctors view them as relatively benign in comparison to other medications. (1) www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm
SSRIs/SNRIs should never be prescribed without a warning of P.A.N.E.S.

To those of who are unfamiliar with medicine, or who simply do not wish to delve too much into research, I will give a brief overview on what this debate is about. SSRIs and SNRIs are simply abbreviations for certain classes of antidepressants which are very commonly prescribed and taken by millions worldwide. The incidence of PANES, another abbreviation that simply refers to "long lasting neural effects" after discontinuation of the medicine, is why my opponent is concerned with proper counseling. I will argue in later rounds that there are indeed a variety of situations in which these classes of medications can be prescribed without a warning of PANES, and that the concern my opponent expresses is not warranted to the level that he displays. I ask of my opponent the following questions: 1. What is the incidence of PANES developing in patients who take their antidepressants in a responsible manner, without abruptly discontinuing it, but rather, titrating the dose downwards? 2. How often and in how much depth do prescribers counsel their patients on their medication? Thank you to the audience, and to my opponent. As there are five rounds, I will anxiously await the clarification of my opponent's opening statement and his initial argument.
SSRIs/SNRIs should never be prescribed without a warning of P.A.N.E.S.

The risks of SSRIs/SNRIs include PANES, or Persistent Adverse Neurological Effects Syndrome. PANES encompasses a variety of bizarre, painful, and often incapacitating psychological and physical symptoms that persist months or years after discontinuing the medication. (1) (1) www.priory.com/psych/panes.htm
the puppet in FNAF2 is an animatronic

Think of it this way. You're reopening a business famous for its animatronics and you decide to buy a puppet of all things, it's just illogical. It couldn't be worn as a suit and the people who got it had no idea of the kids souls trapped in the animatronics so the only logical explanation is that it has an endoskeleton. Since they had facial recognition technology hooked up to a police database they could easily make an endoskeleton to fit it.
the puppet in FNAF2 is an animatronic

well, in FNAF3, we are introuced to the springlocks (things use to wear the suit) , which 2 animatronics have a suit mode! Golden Freddy and Springtrap. why is this needed? I'll get to that later. the puppet as said by the phone guy "I never liked that puppet thing.... It was always...thinking, and it can go anywhere." JUST LIKE GOLDEN FREDDY! yes, in the first game, you can see the Golden Freddy poster, then he just teleports in, yes, he teleports. how I know? even with both doors closed, he still gets in. he teleports in. of course that's in the first game! why does he teleport? I have 2 reasons! 1 he's possesed, and 2 he's in suit mode. TAKE THAT!
the puppet in FNAF2 is an animatronic

Even if he is paranormal there is no way they would have a simple puppet suit or whatever you'd like to call it at Freddy Fazzbears because although it makes sense in a horror universe for the game it doesn't make sense for the business, also we've seen an animatronic without a endoskeleton (golden Freddy ) and it's very slumped and doesn't move unlike the puppet.
the puppet in FNAF2 is an animatronic

hmm... so the endoskeleton in FNAF1 has a slightly bigger chest arrangement then the Puppet's. and the puppet has supernatrual abilities as said by phone guy, and also he's offly paranormal. like he's more then possessed. like he's just a puppet being possessed, and look at his jumpscare, he just flies towards you. unlike foxy from FNAF2 and FNAF3 where he jumps at you...
Primary School Teaching should be improved

Well, I didn't know that we were discussing education in the UK. However, it seems similar to education in the US so I guess it doesn't matter. You agreed that yes, the brighter people learn what they need to at a quicker pace than the more challenged people, but that is obvious. I do not believe that this is a fair consensus that education should be bettered- or by your definition, lowered. I say that I assume you are trying to lower education to better it because you appeal to the more challenged and state that we should accomodate for them. Bottom line I suppose is that teachers are teaching on what the state governments- maybe even federal governments- tell them to teach. Children have the necessary skills to survive with what the regular curriculum is, so there is no reason why the education should be altered. We are taught the basics and if you can handle it and you have the mind capacity, you will learn at a quicker pace. All seems fair to me the way it is.
Primary School Teaching should be improved

Ok, We both forfeited last round. In the UK there is no such thing as acceleration until secondary school is reached though we do have high and lower sets. The point is that although many kids of the brighter kids are taught stuff at the correct time many of the more challenged kids are not taught the necessities until too late. This poses the problem of when this stuff will be taught as there is quite a time pressure to get the whole syllabus completed before exams. If many of these weaker students were taught these things at the correct time then many would benefit. And if the teaching was improved in lower years to cater for the slow learners then the standard of education would be higher in the latter years meaning that the essentials could be taught on time. You say that you were accelerated in primary school because you're bright. Well what about the kids who aren't. I was accelerated in secondary school and I believe that I could have benefited greatly by having a better primary education. We need to look at this argument from the weaker people's perspective.
Primary School Teaching should be improved

I'm not sure which elementary school you attended, but I will speak from personal experience I suppose.I was learning PEMDAS (BEMDAS) in third grade, I was learning photosynthesis in seconds and atoms in fourth and fifth. I do not know what you mean by primary school, but I am assuming you mean grades k-5, and in my experience, I learned all of the things you mentioned before sixth grade. I do not know how either side would prove that majority of schools are this way or that way, but my personal experience should somewhat negate the arguments you have posted, maybe not enough, though. I was also accelerated and read at a high school level by first grade along with my sister and I mastered cursive by second grade when penmanship was a big part of English teachings.
Primary School Teaching should be improved

Ok, let the debate commence! For this round I want to give my main argument and then, in up coming rounds, see how it pans out. I will start off with the three main subject areas: Science, English and Maths. Science is the basis of modern understanding and it explores the world around us with incredible detail. In primary school this detail is, obviously, not going to be taught but I think that a much better basis of knowledge can be built up at primary school. If you were taught the really useful stuff like states of matter, kinetic energy, types of energy, the BASIC particle, forces and the BASIC human body etc. a kids understanding would increase rapidly. The idea here is that the child then has this basis of knowledge to use, when recapped, at high school. The idea of remembering things is like a combination lock. You turn the first ring on the lock which is like the primary school teaching, the second at high school and by the time you turn the third while revising the knowledge is securely locked into your head. Science is about knowledge and by knowing this basic stuff, which isn't taught in a sequential and sensible manner at the moment, you can do better in the all important exams. Maths is a hard one. Primary schools already teach this one quite well but many improvements need to be made. They do teach some useful stuff like shapes and their names but they don't teach stuff like how addition and subtraction interact with each other. This is essential for the whole of Maths in general. If they built up some solid rules like BIDMAS in primary education it would make the teachers life a whole lot easier when it came to secondary education. Maths is that type of subject that some basic rules are needed and your whole life will be easier for years to come. They do need to take an emphasis off times tables as well because they currently take over time which could be used more effectively learning useful number bonds etc. The times tables, although useful, are not necessary to recite as a calculator is always handy. English is being taught to a reasonable degree in primary schools at the moment. Reading and writing should be focused on up until Year 3 and then more emphasis should be placed on reading texts and doing comprehension on them. Another important thing that could be taught better is grammar. This can be easily taught with comprehensions. None of this, I'm sure you will agree, is too hard to implement. If this was implemented then it would benefit children throughout their education. You need that base their, just like you need sturdy supports for a building.
The Electoral College should be abolished

The electoral college doesn't decide which party wins any election, this is in the power of the foolish people.The electoral college merely are involved with making sure the best candidate for each party represents it and clearly to have gotten far up enough to enter it is like being the Michael Jackson of pop, the Vishnu of Hinduism.You are debating whether people should have a say in politics, I totally agree they should, but they should decide between candidates voted in by geniuses of political talent spotting and analysis who put blood sweat and tears to get to the level they are at and deserve the privilege of knowing all that effort went towards assuring the best, politically, for the parties being represented. They make sure that Obama is worthy of his place, that Romney is of his. They make sure that if someone better comes along, they take those people's places and ensure the efficiency that would only be expected of such admirable hard working people as those in the Electoral College. They aren't just some con-men running banks, this is not the kind of political exploitation relevant it is merely voting WHO REPRESENTS A PARTY BEST and they would know better than any other citizen on Earth.
The Electoral College should be abolished

Why does Con refer to us as "a million fools?"" I think something more suitable would be "a nation of ignorance" As we all know, all politicians work by exploiting the ignorance of the people If you have a nation full of ignorant people, than a politician can easily manipulate their words and actions to convince the people that they are for the country for the people for the children for the women for the minorities and for American rights We can never really get a trustworthy, honest or consistent president because the nature of politics is manipulative and unfair. Our people are also constantly manipulated by the government in advertising, speech, media, propaganda etc." Our government manipulates us to believe that our government wants to protect and help us and that we need government to survive. Little do most of our people know that the government is always exploiting our ignorance in this regard. If we always have a few "geniuses" (or elitist politicians) to always decide which president should run the country, than the government will always have power over us. If the Government is always encouraging our ignorance through propaganda, media, and withdrawal of certain information, then the Government will always have an excuse to hold more power over us since "it is far better to have a few geniuses deciding who gets power than a million fools" The thing that we have to change is our nation of ignorance. Then we will truly recognize that we have not been living under a true democracy and that we have the right to change that. That we have the right to choose our own president and not have a group of elitists deciding who runs the country. If we are more educated, and then the"Electoral College is removed, we will have more options of candidates to choose than just "Democrat vs. Republican." We'll have 3rd party candidates, which is great because our people are becoming more like independents politically! Our people are not idiots that will never learn. Our people are constantly underestimated and under appreciated. The Government will always use our ignorance against us if we continue letting them. If we want a representative democracy that is more direct, than we will make it happen and give ourselves more power. We should have more power than that! Politicians in the end are also just regular people like you and me. So people shouldn't be treated like numbskulls and politicians shouldn't be treated like "geniuses." Our people should have more of a voice if our people want a more true democracy in this country!
The Electoral College should be abolished

Con seems to argue that the Electoral College is composed of "political experts""The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of Electors.""The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. "http://www.archives.gov...; "Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."So, not exactly If Con wants to bring up any more arguments he can I would bring up more arguments, but I want to first hear him elaborate on his claims
The Electoral College should be abolished

I will be arguing that the Electoral College should be abolished I believe that the Electoral College contradicts the idea of a "Democracy" and instead implies a "Republic" or a country run by the "Elite." I believe that the Electoral College should be abolished for these reasons:Theres always a possibility of electing a president who didn't get a majority voteThere's the risk of "faithless" Electors,There's the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnoutThere's a possibility of failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.http://uselectionatlas.org...The Electoral College also gives more weight to votes cast in small states etc.http://www.scholastic.com...Con will be arguing that the Electoral College should not be abolished for any reasons that Con provides
The Electoral College should be abolished

The electoral college isn't only responsible for handling who represents a party best. I don't know why Con is saying that is the only thing they are responsible for. The electoral college is also responsible for deciding in the end, who wins the election based on their own judgement So theres always a possibility that a candidate who got the minority votes, could win.That's what happened to Al Gore. Al Gore got the majority vote but lost in the electoral college vote.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...This is extremely significant as it shows that millions of candidates votes are wasted because the electoral college ultimately decides who becomes the president and vice-president.Small states are also disproportionately held in too much importance under the electoral college system. Since there are less people in smaller states, if their vote drastically affects the vote in the way that the electoral college is run, than more people will be affected than if the larger states got their way.The electoral college was created in order to protect the country against "the bad votes because of the ignorance of the people."The writers of the Constitution were elitists.They didn't want the uneducated people deciding who would become president. it may have been for the best at the time but now people are more educated than back then. If the electoral college is abolished, than people will become more encouraged to become educated about politics since they feel that their vote will make more of a difference. Abolishing the electoral college would also bring in more room for third party candidates and suchThe fact that there is still an electoral college implies that the Government does not trust the people enough to make a wise decision in their vote. It still implies the elitist doctrine that was held in the sentiment of the writers of the Constitution.This is not a true democracy!If the Government continues making decisions for the people instead of the people making decisions for themselves, than the Government will always have immense power over us.The people deserve the take back their country and ultimately decide for themselves who will run the country and no electoral college is going to make that decision for them
Abortion is Always First-Degree Murder

I would like to begin by thanking Pro for this topic and this debate. However, the case Pro presents is severely flawed. Pro attempts to squirrel away from my argumentation by throwing hands up in the air, claiming the line for personhood is somehow grey, and asserting that a human being and a person are somehow different entities. In case I was not clear, a human being and a person are interchangeable entities; the reason, I feel, is quite obvious. A human being is "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" [1]. Note that this is the precise delineation that I have argued for the entire round. To demonstrate how Pro's conflation of human as an adjective and human being as a noun, I will use the case of my arm. My arm, if amputated from my body, has human DNA. However, I find it quite difficult to argue it is in any way human. Besides this example of the absurdity of Pro's standard, Pro does not, in any way, substantiate, with definition or evidence, why the line for a human being should be the moment of conception; rather, assertions are relied upon in spades. Finally, let's look to Pro's definition of murder. Other than the human being/person semantic argument I have presented earlier, the end of the definition substantiates my claim. The idea that the conditions must specifically be covered in law implies that the victim must have some rights claims. A person does because they possess cognitive and deliberative capacities to be protected; indeed, animals (and fetuses past the point of viability) have lesser derivative rights as a result of their relatively lower cognitive and deliberative capacities. However, to argue that a zygote, which, at the point of conception, is literally the combination of two cells, has these rights claims is absurd under the definitions I have presented, and, indeed, the definitions Pro has presented. Moreover, note that Pro's definition of murder deals with conditions specifically covered in law. As it turns out, abortion IS specifically permitted under law, per Roe v. Wade. As a result of these, Pro's argument cannot possibly stand. A fetus is not a human being or a person, and, thus, its termination is not a first degree murder in any sense. Pro has yet to make any non-assertive arguments to the contrary. Thank you, and I look forward to future rounds. Sources:1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Abortion is Always First-Degree Murder

Taking the stance that a fetus is not a person at all is another interesting angle at which this argument can be viewed, and it raises a question that in truth, cannot be answered. In order to argue for or against the thesis that a fetus is, in truth, impossible. What constitutes a "person" is a grey area, and one person's definition will almost certainly differ from the next's. My opponent, for example, would tell you that a person is a human with cognitive abilities; while I would tell you that a person is any human post-conception. This problem is why I try to avoid the word "person" and use the term "human". Human is pretty non-negotiable. Anything that has human DNA is a human. So at the moment of conception, there is a new human. By this standard, abortion is in fact murder. murder   mur·der [mur-der] Show IPA noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Now definitions may vary, but often the term human is used over person, because it is more definitive. According to this definition, abortion is murder (killing of a human by another) of the first degree (it is premeditated). And with that I stand by my original statment: Abortion is first-degree murder.
Money is worthless

Welcome, I would like to explain how money is not worthless. a. Money is worth something because the world has decided that it is worth something. For example, the United States has decided that the dollar is worth a certain amount, therefore, gas stations will allow one to have an 'arnold palmer' beverage for a dollar. A dollar is worth an 'arnold palmer,' you see? Obviously most objects are only worth what they are intended to if they are in their proper circumstance. A dollar might not be worth anything if you were marooned on an obscure uninhabited island off of Antartica, but neither would a flatscreen tv. b. The majority of the world has built a dependence upon money. We cannot eliminate it because that is unrealistic. You could go to a life of trading, but let me recommend living by some South American tribe where they actually do trade with each other.