BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

Well, I suppose you didn't understand what I actually wrote. What I said is not that this cognitive approach, and holistic cognition has nothing to do with holism, fostered certain thoughts and values, which seems highly possible. Now, there was a scientific research that was done by Richard E. Nisbett on holistic cognition. You should check that out and look up the word holistic in the dictionary, which you have not done to my amazement. As a closing remark, I want to state in an ethical debate on what is wrong and what is right, there's no scientific proof used. In fact, neither con or pro can come up with any evidence. In this debate, people should consider only the likelihood of the proposition and not its factuality.
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

{*Several anecdotal accounts suggest that East Asians perceive in a holistic way; whereas Westerners perceive in an analytical way.*} You have no source for the anecdotal accounts, nor are anecdotal accounts reliable. Even still, this notion is absurd to begin with. How could one experiment involving a few people represent the entire population of East Asia? Second of all, if this "holistic cognition" hindered scientific progress, then why is Hong Kong, China the 4th most technologically advanced city in the world? [1] This shatters your entire assertion. {*The East Asian children often responded "it is the sea"; whereas the Western children often responded "it is a turtle".*} This has nothing to do with holism. Holism is a philosophy, not a form of flawed visual perception. Holism is a philosophy that "emphasizes the importance of the whole," but it does NOT say that the parts must be ignored. This seems to be what your whole argument hinges on. You claim that the holistic people of the East can't even visually perceive the parts, and can only see things as a whole. However, this is probably not true, nor does it have anything to do with the philosophy of holism. I personally am a holist, and I can tell you directly that I am fully capable of analyzing. {*My opponent should also look up the word "holistic" in the dictionary, which is the antonym of then word "analytic".*} My research says otherwise. I could not find an online dictionary that listed "analytic" as an antonym of holistic. In conclusion, my opponent has not adequately supported the resolution and has not even provided a clear defense of his position. I have also proved that Hong Kong, a city in China, is one of the furthest ahead in scientific progress, and therefore, my opponents argument has been negated. [1] http://gpmgroup.info...
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

I could hurt myself with the elbow by saying that the proposition cannot be proven by modern science techniques, but any scientific theory can be proven wrong by new experimental data. The proposition thus cannot be proven wrong or right by scientific means. It can be proven wrong, if any word is, contrarily to intent, misused. However, it cannot be proven right. I can nevertheless convince a majority that it is highly plausible. Now, that I have given myself a semblance of a handicap, I shall proceed. The proposition of this debate implies that the notion that the mind can be predisposed to adhere to a system of thought for the reason that it is also predisposed to perceive in a certain way is true. Consider this simple thought experiment: a person with a narrow field of vision will not notice certain details on the road as a person with a broader field of vision would. Several anecdotal accounts suggest that East Asians perceive in a holistic way; whereas Westerners perceive in an analytical way. An intelligence test was designed for children. After having been used in the West, it was translated for use in the East. Scientists noticed a striking difference in one of the questions. The question involved a picture showing a giant turtle floating in the middle of sea. The question asked "what is it"? The East Asian children often responded "it is the sea"; whereas the Western children often responded "it is a turtle". A scientific research was conducted and confirmed this cognitive difference. Holistic cognition seems to be correlated with the prevalence of values and beliefs—scientific and religious—that put greater emphasis on relations rather than objects considered independently. My opponent should also look up the word "holistic" in the dictionary, which is the antonym of then word "analytic".
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

It appears my opponent has plagiarized (http://www.asiafinest.com...;), but I will contend his arguments regardless and I expect him to defend the resolution further. He states that the Eastern holistic cognition, as opposed to the Western analytical cognition, was among the main factors that led to the Chinese scientific stagnation. There are several problems with this assertion. 1. He has failed to define any terms, so I will provide definitions here: Holistic: Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. [1] Cognition: That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [2] 2. Holistic cognition isn't the opposite of analytical cognition nor are there any properties of holism that would trump scientific progression. My opponent has made an affirmative claim, so he has the burden to prove the resolution. Thus far, he has provided us with more bare assertions based on a poor understanding of the topic. {*The Eastern holistic cognition, by emphasizing the I as an element in the Whole, certainly paved the road that predated the coming of collectivism towards its cultural acceptance.*} The "whole" that Holism represents, isn't a collective group such as the collectivist concept, but rather the entire Universe. {*With collectivism came certain customary practices. For instance, we can think of the deep reverence towards seniors, particularly pronounced in East Asian cultures, which restricted the free flow of thoughts from one to another.*} My opponent is trying to connect holism with collectivism, and connecting collectivism with the restriction of the free flow of thought. He provides no explanation, nor explains how any of these things are connected. The rest of his argument goes off on a tangent while still providing no evidence. >>Conclusion<< Pro failed to meet his burden. [1] [2] Dictionary.com
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

The proposition is the following: the Eastern holistic cognition, as opposed to the Western analytical cognition, was among the main factors that led to the Chinese scientific stagnation. I contend that the proposition is true. This cognitive approach has hindered the development of science in that it promoted the establishment of inconspicuous hindering mechanisms, which through cultural consolidation became even more obstructive to the development of science in China. The Eastern holistic cognition, by emphasizing the I as an element in the Whole, certainly paved the road that predated the coming of collectivism towards its cultural acceptance. With collectivism came certain customary practices. For instance, we can think of the deep reverence towards seniors, particularly pronounced in East Asian cultures, which restricted the free flow of thoughts from one to another. Without doubt, the self shapes culture and vice-versa, and certainly the Eastern holistic cognition is but one of the inherent characteristics of the Eastern self, which can be molded by culture alone. I contend that the Eastern holistic cognition may not have been the decisive factor, but was one of the factors that led to some obstructive cultural peculiarities in Eastern cultures. The Eastern holistic cognition was also conducive to the emphasis of balance in Eastern cultures. As balance was stressed, the political apparatus in China did not adopt policies towards the development of science; for instance, families kept their engineering knowhow to themselves and the State did not promote the importance in building upon past knowledge. To that we can add that China did not adopt policies to industrialize its economy. This was politically purposeless as China did not have a culture of consumerism, nor it could have led to scientific development as the foundation was not laid.
The United States Has A Moral Obligation To Promote Democratic Ideals In Other Nations

Thank you con for the debate. Definition of terms: Promote: "to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further"(1) Moral: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: "(2) Obligation: "something that is done or is to be done for such reasons"(3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttals: Con says "I would like to initiate this debate by pointing out that we, as humans, have the individual right to choose our own path in life. whether it be a government choice or a job choice, we should all have the freedom to choose. for this reason, I stand in negation of today's resolution." The idea that we as humans have the individual right to choose our own path in life is a democratic ideal. So is self-determination, both ideas pertain to the idea of a democracy. Con is promoting democratic ideals and portrays them as moral obligations in his argument. Con says ", do we really want to force that on other countries?" Obviously not, that is why we should "promote" rather than force. Promotion can be done in many ways. Con seems opposed to military force others to be democratic. I agree with him, however, We have a moral obligation to encourage all countries to be democratic in nature. Con has not provided any reasons as to why we should not "promote" democratic ideals. As con has no arguments against the resolution, I affirm the that "The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other Nations. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)http://dictionary.reference.com...
The United States Has A Moral Obligation To Promote Democratic Ideals In Other Nations

I would like to initiate this debate by pointing out that we, as humans, have the individual right to choose our own path in life. whether it be a government choice or a job choice, we should all have the freedom to choose. for this reason, I stand in negation of today's resolution. just as we had the individual right to choose our own government, other countries should have the same choice. i would like to bring up the example of The Revolutionary War. We, as the colonist of the new country we landed on, wanted our own government, not the same government as Britain. as forth, we fought the Revolutionary War in order to gain the independent freedom to create our own government. We know how much damage the Revolutionary War did to America, do we really want to force that on other countries? I leave the judges with this question as a thought provoker on why they should vote for the side i stand on.
more guns means more overall homicide

I argue that my opponent did not give any argument of his own in the previous rounds. Sources do not count as your argument. If they did, that would technically be plagiarism because in order to have a legitimate argument you must put the sources you used into your own words. This being said, I would like to conclude with the fact that while most of my arguments were about banning guns, my opponent's whole argument was about being "worried about present day threats" and nothing about why or how more guns would equal more homicide. Thanks so much for this debate!
more guns means more overall homicide

a lot of his points are off, but con is pretty smart for a 14 year old. the main point is that your examples are bans, not ban and confiscation or that less guns means more homicide. if you dont remove the guns a ban might not be all that effective. and, you've basically given three anecdotal evidences, but ive given worldwide studies, and multiple studies at that. on the australia point, they never saw their rate increase even temporarily,,,, it went down to half of what it used to be, and their mass shootings have stopped when they were every year before that. that can't be a statistical anamoly. im not going to look into the other two countires cause they are anecdotes at best. all i'm arguing is more guns mean more homicide. i'm not trying to argue about if it's a good idea or not to take away guns. but i will say we need to be worried about the actual present day threats than far fetched possibilities of a government take over.
The Slavery Practiced Generally in the Antebellum South is Biblically Justifiable.

Arguments"You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field. In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property." [1]According to Leviticus, on the on the 15th year slaves were to be set free and were to be returned to their families. However, this was not practiced by slave owners in the south. The slave-owners of the south did not follow the Sabbatical guidlines either. Generally, they did not allow their slaves to not work on sunday (though it is true that some did.).Biblically, the things that the southern slave owners did was not acceptable under biblical standards. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
The Slavery Practiced Generally in the Antebellum South is Biblically Justifiable.

I look forward to a constructive debate. Biblically Justifiable- justified as being morally acceptable based on the bible or the teaching layed out therein. Antebellum South- The southern states that practiced slavery from 1812 up until the Civil War. Slavery- the practice or system of owning slaves. Generally-in most cases; usually.
The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

ok, first, he doesn't answer any of my arguments, therefore I gain all offense on case. Secondly, he asks you to vote on bias, this completely goes against the spirit of debate. I ask you to not vote on bias. That only creates a close-minded society >>Do I really need to cite someone to prove that Special Operations are good? -yes, cite someone to say that they are worth the 257 billion they cost >>War obviously creates regional instability. Its War. Its not happy go fun time. -how?
The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

I actually had stated quite plainly that any loss of life is bad. I was making the point that Pro cannot use the number of dead American soldiers as a measure of failure. Every soldier is willing to give his life, if he isn't, then quite frankly they shouldn't be in the military. Saying "end the atrocities." is not an argument. In the challenge Pro stated he wanted to remove all military conduct in Afghanistan, including Special Operations. I agree with Pro that a removal of the bulk of our troops would be a wise move. However, the removal of all of the troops does nothing but leave a giant vacuum. Someone will fill that void, and more than likely it would not be a friend. Do I really need to cite someone to prove that Special Operations are good? I ask this of the voters and of Pro, have you ever served in the military? Have you spent time in a Forward Operating Base? Have you ever been in combat? The simple fact is that anyone who is not willing to hold a rifle in their hands and step into battle, has no business dictating military strategy. Let me repeat myself. No one, that is not willing to go into combat, should be deciding military strategy. I do however, believe that it IS the civilian and politicians job to decide WHEN to go to war. But once that is decided, they have no authority when it comes to strategy and tactics. With the obvious exception of war crimes, for which the military already has laws governing. War obviously creates regional instability. Its War. Its not happy go fun time.
The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

>>>Pro linked a source siting more than 1,000 dead U. S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This will sound callous, because it is, but 1,000 dead soldiers in a war that has lasted nearly ten years, is a numerical success - it is extremely callous. anybody dying is bad, especially, when it is also innocent civilians. plus extend smith 09 this war is dehumanizing civilians women and the SOLDIERS. end the attrocities >>> there are still many of us out there opposed to it, there are almost no national rallies and what few there are, have meager attendance. - well, nonactivisism does not show no support. (triple negative) >>>I do agree with Pro that continuing this large scale war and massive spending on the military has a horrendous impact on our economy. I would also agree that a large reduction in forces would be in our nations best interest. However, Pro stated in the challenge that he included special operations removal as well. -- since he agrees, hen why debate? >>>An invasionary force is not necessary in Afghanistan, however a well funded and equipped Special operations and intelligence group, given license to fight a war without constantly asking permission to fire on the enemy, would successfully end the fighting in less than a year -he cites no one to say that special operations are good >>War is not pretty. It is ugly, violent, and harsh. People die. Soldiers face the brunt of the casualties, but it is impossible to conduct a war that in which no civilians, no innocent, no children are killed. That fact is why politicians, and the American people that they answer to, must not declare war without long and careful consideration. however, once war is declared, all strategic and tactical decisions must be handed over to the military -exactly, if war is ugly, why continue it? he gives no reason why, therefore you must vote pro also, special operations drain 275 billion extend that this money could have been spent on domestic priorities. . http://gc.nautilus.org...
The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

First I would like to address pro's description of of the "tens of thousands of us troops who have seen their lives shattered by horrendous physical wounds as well as the immense psychological toll of repeated tours of duty..." I would ask the voters to pay special attention to the numerous times pro states the tragedies faced by the troops and their loved ones. Pro linked a source siting more than 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This will sound callous, because it is, but 1,000 dead soldiers in a war that has lasted nearly ten years, is a numerical success, not a failure. In Vietnam, a war that lasted nearly twenty years, more than 56,000 U.S. troops were killed. The invasion of Normandy in WWII cost America more than 2,000 lives. That is more than twice the number of American dead in a single battle, versus a ten year long war. Now I'm not trying to lessen the sacrifice of those who have died fighting. I feel their pain, I really do. However to use the number of American dead as a point of failure is absurd. Soldiers fight. Soldiers die. Its what we do. Next Pro states that the anti-war movement has not disappeared. while this is technically correct, there are still many of us out there opposed to it, there are almost no national rallies and what few there are, have meager attendance. I do agree with Pro that continuing this large scale war and massive spending on the military has a horrendous impact on our economy. I would also agree that a large reduction in forces would be in our nations best interest. However, Pro stated in the challenge that he included special operations removal as well. This is where I disagree. to quote Robert A. Heinlein: "War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence." An invasionary force is not necessary in Afghanistan, however a well funded and equipped Special operations and intelligence group, given license to fight a war without constantly asking permission to fire on the enemy, would successfully end the fighting in less than a year. I realize that that my time line may seem optimistic, but if there is one thing that American soldiers, especially our special operations groups, are good at, its war fighting. You may ask, why then are we still there? why have we not "won?" The answer is that the war has become political. War is not pretty. It is ugly, violent, and harsh. People die. Soldiers face the brunt of the casualties, but it is impossible to conduct a war that in which no civilians, no innocent, no children are killed. That fact is why politicians, and the American people that they answer to, must not declare war without long and careful consideration. however, once war is declared, all strategic and tactical decisions must be handed over to the military.
The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

Why is Pro campaigning for your votes? shouldn't his arguments stand on their own, without him asking every other sentence to vote for him? Pro claims I didn't address is arguments. Thats not true. He raised numerous economic and instability arguments, that i do not disagree with, becaue they are arguments against having and maintaining a large occupying force in Afghanistan. I do not disagree with the removal of a large number of troops. So why did I debate? Because in his challenge, Pro stated, and I quote: "This includes counter-insurgency forces and war on drug efforts in the region." That statement is what I am argung against. And it is that fact that I did not respond to the economic arguments. When I pointed this out, Pro placed a false source and continued to use its irrelevant numbers as a talking point. War is painful and costly. It is arguably the worst interaction that humans can engage in. That is why it is imperative that the citizens of a nation and their elected leaders show as much caution as possible before declaring it. However, we live in a world where we have declared war. Pro's argument is that we should pull out every single troop and dollar and let cards fall where they may. That is just as irresponsible as invading in the first place. Has the current strategy failed? That depends on how you look at it. Militarily it has been a success. That is because a military victory can come at sch a high cost to seem a total failure. Just ask King Phyrrus of Epirus after he defeated Rome in 280 B.C.E. Pro's simple and foolish strategy of "end the war now because its horrible and costing an insane amount of money" is typical of someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of military strategy, or history. It is the cry of the ignorant, and it is a dangerous cry.