BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cap and Trade should be passed by Congress

Cap and trade is a useful piece of legislation , however most americans forget that it is a long-term bill . cap and trade will reduce consumption , increasing investment and providing a more sustainable growth rate( by spreading peaks in consumption over a tonger time period ) in the economy . the enemies of Cap and trade will argue that Cap and trade will damage the economy . The biggest damage to the economy at the moment is the government overspending exerbated by the bush and obama administrations. If cap and trade provides a more sustainable economy with more sustainable economic agents, it will surely create a more sustainable macro-economic agency . THe enemies of cap and trade will also argue that it exaberates poverty , but poverty in the us has already returned to 1950's levels without the cap and trade legislation in place. if poverty is excerbated without the cap and trade legislation how much of any effect that it might have, could actually be attributed to the legislation itself ? and how much to the numerous other factors ? The enemies of the legislation argue that the legislation will result in trade wars . However the doha round of the WTo negotiations on global trade is a trade war on protectionism already happening . How many subsequent trade wars could actually be attributed to the legislation and how many more will be attributed to the over-consumption of resources by reckless individuals making irrational decisions on macro-economic policy . cap and trade is a market solution to the economic problems of the world , universal social care is a government imposed solution to the healthcare problems of the us. government imposed solutions cannot be beneficial in the long-term . however many companies have been advocates of the market based approach of the cap and trade over government imposed solutions which could of been imposed by a democratic congress. most of the us population is within range of the major amounts of air polluntants which cap and trade deals with . london in the uk's economy improved after improving the air quality . i will give way .
Cap and Trade should be passed by Congress

Hey all. I'm glad to be back to DDO. And hopefully I can have some good debates. "Cap and Trade should be passed by Congress" Since I am Con for this topic, I ask that my opponent writes his case first. However, I'll disclose the tags of my arguments so they have a general direction of where my case will be going. Thanks and good luck! Contention 1: Cap and Trade will Result in Trade Wars Contention 2: Cap and Trade Exacerbates Poverty Contention 3: Cap and Trade Damages the Economy
Should 2000 rupees be in india

My Burden of Proof is still not clear. I'm taking it that I should argue why 2,000 rupees should be in India. I did say I'd make a weak argument.So 2,000 rupees are in India, meaning $30. Now, that actually isn't a whole lot american dollars. However, 2,000 itself is a big number. India would be fine with such money. Though I think there should be even more, 2,000 is moderate.Con never made a clear argument, and her side isn't obvious. There's a new currency? Okay. Rupees are getting redesigned? Alright. that doesn't mean anything, really. Debate is about explaining why your side is correct. If you're not arguing for or against anything, it isn't a debate. If you want to make another debate, clearly state the topic, as well as what you think about it.
Should 2000 rupees be in india

Not to be confused with the Legend of Zelda currency, Rupees are an Indian currency on Earth. It's worth 1.5 american pennies. 2,000 rupees would be worth exactly 3,000 pennies, or $30.I'll go into depth later on why there shouldn't be 2,000 rupees... or why there should. The burdens aren't clear. [I'll make a weak argument. Don't worry.]
Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

I apologize for the late reply, I was, as it were, disheartened with the way this debate is heading. You see it seems that my opponent did not fully read the definitions that were presented. You see he made the same mistake for which I made this debate in the first place. Ideally by the end of this debate I would have changed, if not my opponent's mind, then the readers' mind. With that before I go on to refute my opponent's case I think it is important to discuss the Spirit of the motion. I should also note that my opponent admits that he has the complete burden of proof here in the comments. In any case the Latin rule should stand: 'Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat'. As my opponent is making the claim he must show why Occam's Razor absolutely applies to God. With that let me begin. Often people make the mistake that Occam's Razor applies to everything, it in fact does not. You see Occam's Razor has its origins in Aristotle, more so in the Posterior Analytics: 'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.' I do not want to play on semantics but it is necessary here. The key words here are 'hypotheses'. You see Occam's Razor is used where the other postulates are pure speculation. To show that Occam's Razor applies to God one must show that God is pure speculation, or that there are no logical bases for the belief in a God. Now that we have that cleared let us move forward. My opponent starts out with accepting that there are some justification presented, but instead of talking about how those justification are wrong (something very much possible) he talks about something which is besides the point. You see his argument is ab absurdo, that I commit the special pleading fallacy. If I can show that it is not special pleading as God is not added in the definition then I win. So the first point which needs to made very clear is that Occam's Razor applies only to cases where there is speculation, as Pro took the BoP it is his responsibility to show that all justification of God is a speculation. Now let us consider the example given. You are right we would assume a baseball broke the window. However should it be that a particular psychotic was on the loose who liked breaking windows and then after jacking off in the car's driver seat he would leave the baseball it would not be incorrect then to say that there is a chance that that might have happened. It could even be correct, since it would not longer be based on "hypothesis" but on theory Occam's Razor does not apply. You see I did not ask my opponent to disprove God, he cannot, and that is precisely the reason why Occam's Razor cannot be applied. Only if God was a purely speculative phenomenon could Occam's Razor be used. So keeping this is mind it is only right to conclude that my opponent has not fullfilled his BoP. The resolution collapses. Ajab
Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

Greetings! I have seen that in many debates the argument of Occam's Razor is used to debunk the concept of God. It is argued that because the belief that God does not exists is less complex, we must reach the conclusion that God does not exist. For this debate we will assume that Occam's Razor is a sound theory. My opponent should start immediately. As for the explanation as what is Occam's Razor I present the following: 1. 'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses. ' -Aristotle, Posteriori Analytics 2. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. -misattributed to William of Occam. My opponent should begin immediately. This is a relative resolution.
Should corporate punishment be allowed in schools or academies

Teachers in academies and schools use corporal punishments to change student's behaviour, but as soon as children get punished that way, the child will get mad and depressed. The child will start thinking that he is a bad person and a useless person. If they get punished like that too much they will become violent, and also they will become aggressive to their friends. Instead or punishing the teachers and parents should emphasis good behavior and applause them when they do something good, so they will feel better when they are prasied and will try better when their doing something positive. For example when a student is late for class the teacher should tell him or her to come a bit earlier next time. When teachers tell students to do something they will resist and maybe even ignore what teacher said if the teacher hits them instead of saying it in a good way. Some teachers hit them again if they don't listen. Then the student will try to quit the academy and if their parents are hitting them they might even decide to leave home.
19th century European Imperialism was predominantly negative.

I will be debating why 19th century European Imperialism was predominantly negative. Round Rules and Regulations: 1 - Acceptance 2 - Positions 3 - Rebuttals and Refutations 4 - Rebuttals and Refutations (No new arguments) 5 - Closing Statements No name calling, generalizations, assumptions or ostentatious bigotry. Each participant must use at least 3 sources for entire debate. Definition of Imperialism (for the sake of debate): the extension of power and dominion of one powerful nation or empire over another. Note: This will be my 4th official debate on debate.org. My past debates have definitely ended in the most unfortunate and sour manner. I hope this debate will be much more engaging and enlightening.
19th century European Imperialism was predominantly negative.

The points in which my opponent has expended restricts his argument only to British Imperialism in Africa (not European Imperialism as a whole). It completely disregards the majority of other colonies and their mother countries. But in order to effectively refute his refutations and continue my original rebuttals, I will reply accordingly to his limited perspective.I did not argue that British Imperialism resulted in the enslavement of many slaves, I argued that European Imperialism was catalytic to an increase in the mistreatment and transportation of slaves [1]. Secondly, the ability to have private merchants and worldwide trade resulted in ethnocentrism for the Imperial leaders. When my opponent exposes this idea, he emphasizes that the mistreatment and enslavement of African natives was simply due to business. This works against his argument because the enslavement and mistreatment of millions of slaves just to 'buy them for the exchange of goods', then there is a negativity here; treating people as means and not as ends in themselves.In addition to the point where my opponent explains how slaves were already slaves to the African Kings before the influence of European Imperialism, this denies the idea that European expansion made the slave trade any better. In fact, upholding a view that European Imperialism not only supported the enslavement and mistreatment of millions of indigenous peoples, but maintained (and perhaps increased) this business only for the sake of commerce[2].In conclusion, corporations can be Imperialistic in accordance with the concept of Informal Imperialism. Informal Imperialism is the indirect rule over a subjugated society subject to the ruler's oppression of culture and socio-economics.Neo-colonialsim and the Imperialism exploited throughout Europe's major colonies, which do not only include Africa as my opponent has limited himself to, during and after the nineteenth century.This round, for me personally, has indefinetly been affected by the limited amount of time for which my opponent had posted too early. For the sake of this entire debate, I must reiterate that my opponent has limited himself to Formal British Imperialism in nineteenth century Africa, instead of focusing on the entirety of European Imperialism and its global influences in the nineteenth century, which was requested.Sources:[1] Hochschild, Adam. “King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa.” New York, NY. First Mariner Books edition. 1998. [2] David, Saul. “Slavery and the Scramble for Africa.” BBC. np. 17 February 2011. Web. 19 May 2016.[3] <http://isreview.org...;
19th century European Imperialism was predominantly negative.

Imperialism is when a mother country takes over a smaller country for political, social, or economic reasons. This debate will focus on imperialistic mother countries within Europe, and discuss whether the effects of these countries was positive or negative. I will be arguing that, on balance, it was positive. My first reason for this is that 19th century imperialism benefited healthcare in colonial lands. For example, in 1803, Spain started a smallpox eradication effort in its colonies, spawning massive vaccination efforts in the Americas and the Philippines, saving thousands of lives [1]. This also happened in African colonies, as John Iliffe writes, "With the coming of European medicine, peace, and famine relief, mortality declined" [5]. European imperialists also improved sanitation to colonies. Improved sanitation has been proven to substantially decrease mortality, by 47% [6]. That means that European imperialism resulted in cutting the infant mortality rate almost in half in their colonies. European imperialism also led to the increase in education for colonized countries. For example, Mountstuart Elphinstone of Britain greatly promoted education in India, as well as established the state education system there [2]. An increased education leads to extremely positive to results. For example, increased literacy rates leads to rapid and continuous economic growth, raises future earning potential by 15% per child, decreased infant mortality rates, and increased food security [3]. Research shows a strong connection between education and decreased mortality rates, sometimes even by 50% [4]. Imperialism lead to markets for colonial goods. For example, in Africa, the arrival of Europeans during the 19th century lead to a huge market for African goods, such as steel, cloth, jewelry, and alcohol. This was extremely profitable for local leaders [7]. Imperialism also led to protecting smaller countries from attack. Without imperialism, these countries were without major protection, and thus vulnerable to attack by larger powers. European imperialism changed that by protecting these smaller countries, thus preventing war and saving lives. For example, Portugal was able to avoid war through the 19th century due to British Imperialism, resulting in the passage of the Treaty of Windsor [8]. In short, imperialism deterred future wars from occurring. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

Pro again does not address the age of the universe. I maintain the universe is not young. To rebut Pro's spurious claim regarding the first source, it states: >The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it. Taken as a whole, while pointing out that there are flaws, the paper asserts peer-review is the "gold standard", but can be improved upon. I invite Con to only cite studies from journals that meet the recommendations the source proposes. Regarding Dr. Brenner's position, as stated, his words are being taken out of context. Dr. Brenner has a history of being adversarial regarding grant funding.[1] He works in medicine, where the corrupting effect of profit motives and special interest groups like religious organizations can be felt more directly than any other field of research.[2] [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [2] http://jme.bmj.com... Pro fails to address how the opinion of one medical scientist and one medical literature study are relevant to astronomy. They fail to mention any alternatives. They fail to establish any alternative is better. They fail to establish such a system exists and is in use by astronomers. More to the point, they are welcome to use any peer-reviewed research that meets their own criteria.
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

You: The first sentence of the first source:>Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science.Clearly, this is not a negative statement. The source actually provides that peer-review functions well.Answer: It's a neutral statement. The title, however, is negative: "Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals"_____________You: From the second source:>But today there is no way to do [do something different] without money. That"s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported">Do you know we now have these performance criteria, which I think are just ridiculous in many ways. But of course this money has to be apportioned, and our administrators love having numbers like impact factors or scores. Singapore is full of them too. Everybody has what are called key performance indicators. But everybody has them. You have to justify them...>No sooner did I sit down then all the business people stand up and say, how can we ensure payback on our investment? My answer was, okay make it 0.1%.Dr. Sydney Brenner is a geneticist who has had to deal with patenting of genes. Money does corrupt the process. However, there's little or no money in astronomy. Pro has not stated how Dr. Brenner's concerns are relevant, let alone demonstrated any meaningful impact.Answer: Here is what is told in the article I gave: "And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean. I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."_____________You: From your third source:>Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, but obviously they don't support peer-review since they can't get any news from peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence for "intelligent design" (or not-intelligent design).Answer: You completely ignored the critique provided by the website._____________
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

Pro failed to provide any arguments or evidence regarding the age of the universe. They assert the scientific method is not valid. I maintain that the universe is older than 100,000 years. To rebut the claims regarding peer-reviewed evidence, first, if this standard was too great of a burden to meet, Pro should have stated so in the comments some alternative. They should not have accpted the debate. At a minimum they should have proposed an alternative. The first sentence of the first source: >Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. Clearly, this is not a negative statement. The source actually provides that peer-review functions well. From the second source: >But today there is no way to do [do something different] without money. That"s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported" >Do you know we now have these performance criteria, which I think are just ridiculous in many ways. But of course this money has to be apportioned, and our administrators love having numbers like impact factors or scores. Singapore is full of them too. Everybody has what are called key performance indicators. But everybody has them. You have to justify them... >No sooner did I sit down then all the business people stand up and say, how can we ensure payback on our investment? My answer was, okay make it 0.1%. Dr. Sydney Brenner is a geneticist who has had to deal with patenting of genes. Money does corrupt the process. However, there's little or no money in astronomy. Pro has not stated how Dr. Brenner's concerns are relevant, let alone demonstrated any meaningful impact. From your third source: >Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research. Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, but obviously they don't support peer-review since they can't get any news from peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence for "intelligent design" (or not-intelligent design). Further, Pro is cherry-picking. They provide one that demonstrates it's extremely effective, if not perfect, for another field of study. They find one expert in an a different field of study saying peer-review has problems. They pad it out with a claim from a supporter of a special interest group that has spent millions to undermine the system specifically because it does work. Yet, they ignore the thousands of subject matter experts who support the system. http://undsci.berkeley.edu... https://www.lib.utexas.edu... http://www.lib.ncsu.edu... Etc., etc., etc. To assert something is not a "gold standard", they must demonstrate something is better. They haven't even SUGGESTED any alternatives. Pro, do you have any peer-reviewed research demonstrating a more effective system. Do you have any peer-reviewed research demonstrating such a system is actually being used?
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

The Pro (pr.Daniel_Jordan) will argue that there is sufficient astronomical evidence to establish the universe is young. The Con (myself) will argue there is insufficient astronomical evidence to establish a young universe. Definitions: astronomy|ical - science dealing with extra-terrestrial celestial objects, such as stars and galaxies evidence - facts or information provided through peer-reviewed publications universe - the sum of all observable objects and phenomenon young - less than 100,000 years First round goes to Pro.
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

Pro does not address the age of the universe. Pro makes no new assertions. To support my assertion, I provide potassium-argon dating of Martian mudstone on the surface of Mars. It is between 3.86 billion and 4.56 billion years old. As per the definition provided for "universe", the mudstone is a portion thereof. In addition, it was found to have been exposed to surface solar radiation for at least 48 million years. Ergo, at least this one part of the universe is some years older than 100,000. http://m.caltech.edu... http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

This is my last response to you due to your extreme level of manipulation.You take words out of context, leave out an entire title [previous post, response to my first link] and then attempt to accuse me of that with some non sequitor claims about Brenner. Then you go on about medical literature and how it does not relate to astronomy. What?! I heard that if you let a person talk, they'll eventually trip. It's true.Keep going my friend, keep going -- you have been exposed.