BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science should be privatized

1. Indeed, they are not legally obligated. But they are nevertheless forced to buy from this hypothetical corporation or experience very nasty consequences--possibly death. The end results are the same. Correct, people not knowing where their tax money goes is not a good thing. The fact that, for the most part, we do know where tax money goes is actually a reason to support the government funding science; at least we know exactly where money is going. That assumes taxes are theft. They are not. Taxes are a way to fund things that benefit society at large. Scientific research benefits society at large; and the same process that rejected Scientist 2 for funding also has almost certainly helped Scientist 2 often. 3. That, however, does not make Organization 2 look cool and awesome. O1. This would be a valid objection if I was proposing that the government fund all scientific research into medicine. I am not proposing that; I am merely stating that we cannot rely solely on industry to evaluate the safety of their own products, by extension, we cannot rely solely on scientific reports that have a conflict of interest. If the government funds a drug, then federal scientists would have a conflict of interest, if a corporation does, then corporate scientists have a conflict of interest. As far as the process involved, I would make it an adversarial one, a detailed in section six of my second source for round two. Military spending, mostly. Besides, ensuring drug safety is arguably something that should be preserved, simply because doing away with is so incredibly risk. My thanks to JorgeLucas for the debate; he raised some very good points. However, his arguments in favor of privatization failed to prove that the government should get out of science, it merely proved that private entities should also fund science. Pro has also failed to show how we would deal with the conflict of interest inherent in corporations funding studies that evaluate the effectiveness/safety of their own drugs.
Science should be privatized

1. Competition This is far from being the same argument. Scientist 2 is not legally obligated to buy from this hypothetical corporation. People not knowing where their tax money goes is not a good thing. If the government is to represent us, we must know where our money is going. My opponent has not shown how stealing from people to fund their competitors is morally justifiable. 3. Political motivations vs. private motivations Basically, advertising. If Organization 1 gives Organization 2 a grant, Organization 2 repays the debt by putting Organization 1's name into public eye. O1. Industry-sponsored studies tend to be friendly to industries A pro-government bias would be extremely relevant if the government funded the creation of the drug in the first place. Facts unfavorable to the government would likely be excluded, as was the case with the corporations my opponent mentioned earlier. My opponent states that he would not trust research on the effectiveness of government programs solely to the government, but then says that the government cannot rely solely on industry to do the research. What he has failed to do, however, is provide what would be a balance between the two, how responsibilities would be divided, etc. .. Without this, these statements are contradictory. My opponent says that 2% of the budget is "hardly a bloated section in need of drastic cutting. " So then what is? Also, 2% of $16 trillion is $320 billion. That is still a lot of money. And what about the compounding effect of the supposedly small, irrelevant percentages of the budget? If the number of irrelevance is as low as 7%, and all programs with a percentage of 7% or lower on the chart my opponent has supplied are added together, the result is 26% of the budget, or $4.16 trillion. That is certainly quite a lot for sections that at first seem irrelevant. Thank you to Citrakayah for a fun, smart debate. This was a very good debate on the issues my opponent chose to debate. But 3 of my original 4 arguments were conceded to begin with. Those arguments strongly prove my point, and were accepted as such by my opponent.
Science should be privatized

1. The same argument could be made if corporations funded science--Scientist 1 got profits from Scientist's 2 purchase of a product, which he may well have had no choice but to purchase (for instance, if Scientist 2 had an illness that, due to intellectual property laws, only one corporation had access to). Moreover, under current laws, there is a high possibility Scientist 2 might not even know where his money went. 3. Pro has not answered my question: How will corporations end up putting money into things that don't gain them money, and in fact cost vast amounts of it, but make them look cool and awesome? O1: Yes, it would. Which is why one would not trust research on the effectiveness of government programs solely to the government. I fail to see, however, what application any pro-government bias would have on safety trials of experimental drugs. I argue that the government has a moral responsibility to make sure that new drugs on the market are safe, so that they may promote the general welfare. If the government relies solely on industry to do the research, then that runs an unacceptable risk of making it seem like a drug is safe, or more effective than a placebo, when in fact it is not. As far as monetary problems, science and medical research represents 2% of the budget[1]; this is hardly a bloated section in need of drastic cutting. Even if one were to cut funding in that area, it seems like making sure people aren't taking unsafe drugs would be something to keep. 1. http://www.cbpp.org...
Science should be privatized

1. Competition The problem with government grants is simple. First, one must ask where the money comes from. The answer is taxation. Let's say two scientist compete for a government grant. Both are citizens, and thus pay taxes. Scientist 1 is able to beat Scientist 2 for the grant, and receives a donation from the government. Since the donation is coming from the government, it is coming from taxation, and thus part of the grant to Scientist 1 is coming from Scientist 2's tax money. This is not fair competition. This is stealing. 2. Ansari X-Prize/Scaled Composites Cool. 3. Political motivations vs. private motivations Another concession? But to address my opponent's question, the difference between the government and corporations is that corporations do not receive public funding. If a corporation fails to make any scientific progress, the people do not have to answer for it, as they must with the government. Also, in general, corporations compete for profit, but in the Space Race the two governments were trying to prove that their country was more cool and awesome than the other. 4. NASA and Islam Wow. I was not expecting so much coolness... O1. Industry-sponsored studies tend to be friendly to industries While it is unsurprising that industry-sponsored research tends to support industry, it would follow that government-sponsored research would draw pro-government conclusions. In some cases, this can be considered fraud, which is and should be illegal. However, this debate is not about fraud, and the same fraud would exist with the government Next, my opponent says that the government has the money to fund science. I would like to point out we are currently in a recession, and the government is in debt. $16 trillion dollars in debt (1). My opponent suggests that the government has the fund to put itself in even more debt. The government be trying to fix the debt problem, not add to it, as they do when they fund science. Sources: http://www.brillig.com...
Science should be privatized

O1. My opponent brings up the issue of competition. However, competition can exist in government-funded science as well. Namely, competition for grants. If not every single science project can be approved, scientists are forced to explain why their project should receive a grant and others should not. O2. I will concede the efficiency of the X-Prize. O3. I will also concede that political motivations (and security concerns, albeit rather misguided ones) were responsible for the space race. However, I fail to see how this could be applied to corporations. We got good things out of the space race, and from military research in general (for instance, radar)[1]; can similar this be said for companies trying to get rid or outdo each other? O4. I will also concede this point. I would like to bring up biomedics. C1. Industry-sponsored studies tend to be friendly to industries. Examples: * Studies that were funded by the group P&G were more likely to support the safety of an additive known as 'olestra' than other studies.[2] * Support for calcium channel antagonists were tied to funding from industry, with 96% of authors of favorable studies having financial relations and only 37% of authors of unfavorable studies having such relations..[3] * For six oncology drugs, 38% of studies funded by non-profits were unfavorable in terms of cost-effectiveness while only 5% of industry studies were unfavorable in that area.[3] Given that companies have a vested interest in the trials of new drugs, this is rather unsurprising. Nor are these uncommon or isolated cases. A 2007 study examined 37 such meta-studies, and concluded that, and I quote: Strong and consistent evidence shows that industry-sponsored research tends to draw pro-industry conclusions. By combining data from articles examining 1140 studies, we found that industry-sponsored studies were significantly more likely to reach conclusions that were favorable to the sponsor than were nonindustry studies (Bekelman, Li, and Gross 2003, 463).[3] I have seen little evidence to suggest that non-profit, private industry watchdog groups can, by themselves, counter this, without relying on donations from the government, or from corporations (which would represent a conflict of interest). To the best of my knowledge, they simply don't have the fund available. The government does. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www2.lse.ac.uk...
Abortion

I encourage my opponent to make one last conclusion on this debate, and not forfeit the last argument. In conclusion, abortions are a very bad thing, both for the mother and the child. Abortions cause physical and mental pain to the mother, and often leave them second guessing themselves. Doctors should be the ones protecting the children, not the ones aborting the children. Now, there is a better option, put the child up for adoption. As i mentioned above there is a plethora of parents who would love to adopt the children of those who do not want them. Lastly, abortion should be illegal only if it endangers the life of the mother. Otherwise, we will see many negative impacts on our country both now and into the future.
A Christian Ought to Vote Against Prop 8

===== INTRODUCTION ===== I am a relatively conservative Christian, as is my opponent. I, however, believe in the right to gay marriage - not only from a political and constitutional standpoint but from a Biblical one. I believe that supporting gay marriage is justifiable from a Scripture-based worldview, and I will attempt to defend that position here, should my opponent accept. I hope that this will be a fruitful and an enjoyable debate for both of us. I use Prop 8 as an example because it is the most widely recognized ballot measure to deal with same-sex marriage. The 2008 ballot measure passed by a rather narrow margin in the state of California, effectively making gay marriages illegal by defining marriage solely between a man and a woman in the state Constitution. A better title would probably have been "Christians ought to support gay rights" but there is some wording I'd like to clear up before the debate begins. ===== CLARIFICATIONS & DEFINITIONS ===== Support -- I'd like to first mention that I believe homosexuality is a sin, and a grave one. I believe that, like predispositions God has given to others, homosexuality is a challenge that must be overcome. That does not, however, justify the aggregate Christian attitude towards LGBT people in the US and worldwide. Often, homosexuals see Christians as their enemy, and the way that many alleged followers of Christ treat them justify their thoughts. (this is not to insinuate my opponent is a gay-basher). That being said, while homosexuality is a sin in my view (something we both agree on), when I say 'support' in this debate it will be in a very different context than what the world may convey - that is to say, I don't think homosexuality is acceptable, but I "support" gay rights and initiatives against measures such as Proposition 8 from a Biblical standpoint. LGBT-- For the intents of this debate, I'll be referring to same-sex marriage, which does not include transgendered individuals per se. In my opinion, that is another debate for another time. However, if a transgendered woman wants to marry another woman, that is gay marriage for the purposes of this debate. Prop 8-- Blanket term in the title for anti-gay marriage laws and initiatives in the US. I'll use it as a primary example, but the examples either of us may use are NOT limited to the Proposition 8 campaign. Christian-- Simply put, a follower of Christ. In the terms of this debate, one who describes themselves as a follower of Christ who wholeheartedly believes in salvation through faith in Jesus. ===== STRUCTURE ===== The debate will begin in the second round, with my opponent accepting the debate and clarifying or arguing any definitions he deems necessary in the first round. Good luck!
Illegal immigration is bad

Yes cultural diversity is good and I am not trying to stop immigration all together just illegal immigration Also for the business thing immigrants that are legal can still fill those positions Immigrants can still have your education advantage if they are legal Native born workers need jobs that are being taken by illegal immigrants Some illegal immigrants are terrorists that would hurt our country's safety Over all my opponents points can still be solved with legal immigrants also they dropped all of my points which means I win them all since they conceded them.
Illegal immigration is bad

My opponent is forgetting that she and also I immigrated to America which were supposed to be land of the Indians. I would 5 reason why illegal immigration is not bad Diversity The cultural diversity brought by immigrants is a positive thing in itself. Increased diversity brings new influences in art, architecture and food. Business Immigrants are statistically more likely to start businesses than people born in the United States. Their businesses often attract international investment capital as well. Education Many international students study in the United States, but then are forced out due to limited student visas. Allowing for their permanent immigration keeps those educational benefits here, producing new doctors, scientists and programmers. Production More workers produce more capital. It has been demonstrated in countless studies that immigrants, after a start-up period, contribute to tax collections, labor and the production of wealth just as much as those who are native born. Safety The Immigration Policy Center has determined that legal immigrants have an incarceration rate five times lower than the general population, indicating that immigrants contribute to a stable and safe society.
Illegal immigration is bad

While that may be true the outlook on jobs is very bad. Because of this recession many American workers can not find jobs and illegal's tend to work for less and no benefits. Because of this many employers seek to hire them. My opponent said that they have no effect on native workers but if you look at the current job situation in America there are native workers that are unemployed and illegal's that have jobs. Just think, if they were not in our country more Americans would have jobs and our economy would be doing better because we would not have to pay unemployment for them. Also as I stated in my first speech high school dropouts would earn as much as 8% more if illegal did not take the jobs for less. Yes some of the U. S. workforce is aging but there are unemployed Americans that are ready to take their places. My opponent also said that they would allow us to maintain a greater balance of workers to retirees, but if you think about that it would just create an unsuitable cycle of bringing in more and more immigrants and it would be very costly to our economy because of strain that illegal immigrants put on our economy. And to answer my opponents last point they do not help our economy since it is just putting a strain on our social services because of unemployed Americans and it pushes native born workers out of work. Also legal immigrants solve all of the advantages that my opponent stated and they are here legally which means without breaking the law. Also they are better for our economy since they are usually educated and can support themselves, they also pay taxes and are not freeloaders.
Illegal immigration is bad

Congress is considering major immigration reform, in large part to enable employers to bring more immigrant workers into the country to fill critical positions. Rather than present the reasons why this is necessary, below is a perfectly articulated rendition of why immigration is good for the U.S. economy. Leon Sequeira is the current Assistant Secretary for Policy for the U.S. Department of Labor. He testified before the House of Representatives on May 3, 2007 about the impact of immigration on our economy, and said in part: "While the number of immigrants as a percentage of the population might seem large, it is in fact far lower than other periods of heavy immigration in our history. Over the past ten years, 8.8 million immigrants added about 3.4 percent to the population. In contrast, throughout the 19th century, immigration added 6.2 percent to the population each decade, rising above 9 percent during the 1850s and 1880s, and immigration peaked at 10.4 percent of the population during the decade between 1901 and 1910. After 1910, immigration rates fell dramatically, merely adding 5.7 percent to the population during the 1911-1919 decade, further falling to 0.4 percent in the 1930s, and then slowly rising to a still low 2.0 percent in the 1970s. Immigration rates rose in the 1980s (3 percent) and 1990s (3.4 percent) and have since remained stable. The growth of the foreign-born workforce has not produced significant adverse effects on native-born workers. During the last ten years, the unemployment rate for native-born workers fell from 5.4 percent to 4.7 percent. The unemployment rate for African-Americans has declined from 10.5 percent in 1996 to 8.3 percent today. While unemployment has gone down, wages have gone up. Over the last decade, as the foreign born workforce increased, average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers increased 8.7 percent after adjustment for inflation. In 2006, the median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers were $532, compared with $698 for the native-born. There are three fundamental reasons why immigrants are important to our economy. First, the U.S. workforce is aging. Second, continued immigration will allow us to maintain a higher ratio of workers to retirees than other major economies such as China, Japan and Germany. Third, immigrants contribute significantly to innovation and entrepreneurship in our economy.
Illegal immigration is bad

Illegal immigrants are detrimental to our society because they hurt our economy and take jobs. They cost the federal government a lot of money each year. They also take jobs away from American workers. Because of their sheer numbers illegal immigrants put a great strain on the American economy. It costs the government billions of dollars a year to house these illegal immigrants, and because they don't pay taxes we never get a single cent of that money returned to our government. They also cost around 200 billion dollars a year in depressed wages. Another thing is that many illegal immigrants end up in prisons, around 30% of all the inmates in prisons are illegal immigrants. Because of those reasons and others illegal immigrants are hurtful to the U.S. economy. Illegal immigrants take jobs away from low skilled American workers. They will work for less pay and little to no benefits which incentives employers to hire them since it will save the company money; employers want the cheaper employee so they will have a net increase in income. They take away jobs in the agriculture, construction, restaurants, and hotels that jobless Americans would gladly fill. Also American high school dropouts would earn as much as 8% more if illegal immigrants didn't take those jobs for less. Isn't it a responsibility of America to care for its own people first? If that is true we must crack down on illegal immigrants so our low skilled citizens can have the best quality of life possible
Life and the Universe were Created

I find it an inherent truth that life and the universe were created. Of course this is a cyclic argument and thus will not serve as the substance of my reasoning. I will argue that existence is an illusion, merely a combination of sensory inputs and processing of those inputs. However, what is not deniable is the existence of something. I mean something in the most ambiguous sense possible. There is something either "out there" or "in here," i.e. outside of the Universe or within our mind. I say "our mind" despite the fact that individuals possess different knowledge because it is also my suspicion that we are pieces of a larger cosmic organism. An argument from ignorance, as popularized by Niel DeGrasse Tyson, consists of an argument which declares some seemingly insurmountable level of complexity as simply not possibly understood, and somehow thus explained by some other phenomenon that cannot possibly be understood. This is not my intention. My intention is to grapple with this concept, in the same way that we grapple with Zeno's Paradox of the Turtle and Achilles, in which an infinitely divisible unit of distance necessitates that any progressions in distance are impossible. Yet still objects appear to travel distances greater than zero so it must be the case that there is some unit of distance that is the smallest that can exist. Effectively, the resolution of the Turle and Achilles Paradox (i.e. the evidence before our eyes that phenomena do in fact occur and time does in fact progress) necessitates that there are some quantum units in the Universe that are no longer divisible, meaning there is some number beyond which there are no more numbers (i.e. the highest number possible in the Universe, the same number by which any number can be divided to give 0). This number is usually designated as infinity, the summit of human imagination, the conception of a number that would not be reached even if counting were never ceased. However, with the understanding of planck's constant, we now have learned that the quanta of energy that exist in the Universe are limited in how infinitesimal they can be. This means that the Universe is made of "gridlines" so to speak, or pixels, or whatever analogy you wish to conceptualize this with. While seemingly incomprehensible, this is perfectly in line with the notion that the Universe was created. It was built to a certain level and then completed at that level. It is not infinite in its smallness. Rather, progressions are finite leaps contrived by some other ordered phenomenon, in the same sense that in a video game there is a smallest distance one can move in one "step." These at first glance seem insufficient grounds to conclude that the Universe, in outward direction, is also finite, but in fact my intention is to show that the Universe MUST be finite in the outward direction as well, BECAUSE of its finitude in the inward direction.