BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Antibiotics should be heavily restricted.

First of all, here is a personal example. A man named Mark Ledenberg, friend of mine, died from an infection in his arm. He took antibiotics about every day for about a week and a half and died because of overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotics overuse is a huge problem around the world. According to the CDC, the Central Disease Prevention and Control, 2 million people become sick due to antibiotic overuse and about 200, 000 die. This is a number that is only increasing. An antibiotic bacterial infection is when you take so many antibiotics that the bacteria becomes resistant to the antibiotics. Antibiotic bacterial infections are almost impossible to cure and the US spends around 10 - 40%, in some extreme cases, to cure these infections. Once something is resistant and doesn't react to external stimuli, it is very hard to cure. This is why viruses can't be easily cured. Back to the point. Dr. Margaret Chan , the Director-General of the World Health Organization, said , "The world is entering into a post-antibiotic zone, where even the most common illnesses will no longer be able to be healed." She means that people take so many antibiotics that soon, all bacteria will become resistant to the antibiotics. If antibiotics were restricted, there would be less of these infections and less money would be spent to cure them. Get ready, because I can't wait for my other argument. GOOD LUCK!
Prisoners should be allowed to vote

For me, it's round 4 regardless) Violation of any of the above rules means that voters, when voting for the point for conduct, should vote for the other person who did not violate the above rules, or did so less than their opponent. I do report votes if there is not enough RFD, and if voters do not vote for the other person when one person violated one of these rules, it will be reported if there's not enough RFDI don't see a need to define any terms, as these terms should be all accepted to mean the same thing. If con sees a need to define these terms, we will do so in comments.
Privacy is the biggest problem with Social Media

Hey guys, I'm trying to construct a speech which essentially should convince my audience that Privacy is the biggest problem with social media. The arguments which I list are a direct result of the low level of privacy which social media sites have placed. The reasons I have so far are: 1) Identity Theft 2) Under-age accounts are primarily controversial due to the level of privacy minors place on their info 3) Increase in stalking and incentives for sexual predators (i.e. Peter Chapman) If you have any pro/con arguments, please feel free to list, thanks! I should essentially, by the end, convince my audience to change their Facebook/social website privacy settings
Privacy is the biggest problem with Social Media

Thanks to PRO for instigating this debate.I will be, as CON, supporting the notion that Privacy is not the biggest problem with the social media. In fact, the biggest problem would be the addiction it causes within users.In fact, privacy is not a problem at all with the social media, as you can simply change your privacy settings to combat any privacy problems you feel are detrimental to your life.All of PRO's arguments, identity theft, minors, and stalking, can effectively be combated by changing the privacy settings. Therefore, it is not a problem with the social media. However, addiction cannot be so easily fixed. It can't be fixed with a tweak of the settings, therefore, it is obvious, that addiction is a much larger problem than privacy with social media.That is what I will be proving today.To you PRO.
Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively

Pro once again starts off in saying that the public option would have to make a profit. But he gives no reason or proof of this. Why would they be forced to make a profit? As I already stated, and Pro did not respond to, our government is not concerned with debt because it grows by the day, so why would they have to make a profit. In addition to that, on average insurance companies only make a 6% profit margin. In a list of 53 industries, health insurers were at 35 as far as how much profit they make. So they are not even making an obscene amount of profit. If they are forced to cut down even more on profit they will be run out of business which means that the public option is not effective in anything other than handing the health care industry to the government. http://news.yahoo.com... Next Pro says that just because it is government run doesn't mean it will receive government funding. This is simply not true the idea of a public option is to be government funded. "Senate Democratic leaders are considering a government-funded public health insurance option..." "Another controversial but cost-saving provision that Democrats in the House were planning to employ was the government funded public insurance option." These are just a couple of quotes discussing the *government funded* public option. http://airamerica.com... http://tothecenter.com... However, while it being government may be relevant to the debate on the public option itself, it is irrelevant to the resolution. Pro also says that Medicare and Medicaid have not driven insurance companies out of business. Yes that is true that is because Medicare and Medicaid do not impact insurance companies in anyway. They are only for those with low incomes and these programs are entirely funded by the government. So they are not taking any business away from health insurance companies so naturally they do not run them out of business. This brings me to my next point, which is that a public option will take business away from health insurance companies. Former customers of insurance companies may switch to the public option. So these insurance companies would be losing business and at the same time be forced to cut back on their already small profit margin because of the public option. This would clearly run them out of business which means the public option would not be effective thus the resolution is negated.
Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively

As I said, the public option would have to make a profit to stay in business. The public option would be run by the government, however, the public option as proposed would be required to run a profit. By spontaneous I mean that it would have to run a profit as I said earlier. Just because the public option is run by the government doesn't mean it would receive funding. This is voided by earlier statements. This debate is about whether the public option is effective. Whether other ideas are is irrelevant I would also like to add the medicare and medicaid are both run by the government, and neither has driven an insurance company out of business.
Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively

It is true that private companies would have to try and meet the prices of the prices offered by government, but this would be very hard for them to do because the government does not have to run a profit. Pro says insurance companies would not run out of business because the public option would be spontaneous. I am not sure what he means by this so I ask that he clarifies this in the next round. He says that no funding would be received from the government but that is not true because this public option would be run by the government. Pro agrees to this when he says "prices offered by the government." Pro says that the public option would have to turn a profit but that is not true. All a government organization would have to do is be in the black but even then they may not be concerned with that because our government seems to not be concerned with putting ourselves in debt. Something that could control costs effectively is allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines creating fair competition and driving down costs while improving the service received.
Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively

During This debate, I will be arguing that the public insurance option would control the cost of health insurance effectively. My argument is that the public option would control costs because the insurance companies would have to match the prices offered by the government. The insurance companies would not be run out of business because the public option would have to be spontaneous. No funding would be received from the government, and the organization would have to make a profit to stay in business. Thus, all actions made by the public option could be duplicated by any for-profit organization.
Jackie Robinson West stripped of their title

I agree that the children playing the sport should not be punished. However, I still believe the Patriots fiasco is irrelevant, just because it is a different league, sport, and division. Most of what you say is true, and JRW did have an advantage. That was unfair, but that doesn't automatically make the other little league world series team the winner. They should make a fair competition for qualifying teams. By the way, I am a Seahawks fan, although I knew they would lose. how about you?
Jackie Robinson West stripped of their title

The Patriots argument is not irrelevant. Both Jackie Robinson West (JRW) and the New England Patriots cheated in their respective sports. Each team, in their respective cases, had relatively minor transgressions. For Jackie Robinson West they were not given an unfair advantage over the Las Vegas team whom they beat in the championship because that team had beaten JRW earlier in the tournament. Furthermore, it was not the kids on the team who should be punished by having their trophy taken away but instead their coaches should be banned and the team should be dispersed but they should still keep their trophy. The best team doesn't win championships, its the team that puts in the most effort and commitment in order to get to the title.
Teachers Evaluations in NYC

What are you talking about obviously you are not aware of how these evaluations work they are graded according to their overall classroom successes. The children have a very small part in deciding which teacher gets a grade of achievement or under achievement. The Department of Education grades them on their own merit system and procedure that the department calls for. Why would nyc leave the grading system up to students who are in the learning process themselves that would be ridiculous. The teacher is the one who has to follow a curriculum and depending upon how well the information is portrayed and received by the students the teacher has the obligation to go forth and give the students an outlet to scoping the minds of tommorrow. The teachers will be graded based upon their attendance, their overall rates of the reading and math scores of the students, the parent teacher meetings about the student, the interaction between the students and the teacher. The teacher is no longer comfortable in having tenure they have to work hard in order to keep their position. This gives the teachers a heads up on how well or not well they are doing their job and also it gives those who want to have a career in teaching an incentive or how they can change or better the school system for the students learning and for the teachers who are constantly learning everyday. The Department of Education has the guidelines for these teachers conduct and achievements and the students can only be surveyed as to what the class has given them not much of a which teacher needs to go or stay but what each teacher can do to keep the students attentive and how they can make it more interesting and exciting to learn new material. The students are like the lab rats except there is no harm being done to them intentionally.
Teachers Evaluations in NYC

well, first hi. :) i defiantly think your argument is ridiculous. teachers should NOT be graded for their students performance! 1- there are obviously students who hate teachers, i'm pretty sure you have hated a teacher or two during school. other students wanna get back at them by getting bad grades... it's a good way they can get revenge. so, the teacher is gonna go broke because of a few jerk students? eat roman noddles and live under bridges. 2- what if the students refuse to learn. they refuse to do any work. and all they wanna do is sleep, and be lazy. uh, no.
Teachers Evaluations in NYC

Teachers who work in Nyc should be evaluated and awarded based upon their overall class achievements. Tenure should not be given easily after two or more years but given at an adequate time or point in the teacher's career. Evaluations can give in detail the overall outcome of the curriculum the teacher is providing for the student and allow the parents to be informed about the class and the setting and the curriculum taught to their child or children. When the evaluations came out in the ny post last month it raise a couple of questions. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to give out an incentive to those teachers who have excelled or achieved the goal within each grade level. He wanted to offer the teachers a 20,000 dollar award and begin to open up 50 more schools including charter schools to have more teachers apply for these positions and scope the children of tommorrow. Teachers need to be recognized not only by their scholarly academics and their potential to have progression within a classroom setting.
On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system

I am a firm believer in debating ideas as a means to get a deeper understanding or a more complete opinion on different topics. My resolve in this debate is that "On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system" This topic came up in a discussion with some of my buddies and I wanted to see if a legitimate case could be made to support the resolution. After having the opportunity to debate the topic with MyDinosaurHands I think it has become clear that a legitimate case cannot be made to support the resolution, or rather that I cannot construct a legitimate case to do so. That being stated I concede the debate to my opponent. I would like to thank MyDinosaurHands again for accepting this debate. Thanks for reading.
On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system

On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system. Round 1 for con is acceptance Rounds 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals Round 5: Final Rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments) 10,000 character limit 72 Hr. rounds Min elo of 2,000 to vote Select winner voting style this debate should be impossible to accept, comment if you are interested.
Do we live in the matrix

"Sorry for trying to refute your greatest argument that you had already admitted was faulty. My bad."My written language can be a bit sharp sometimes - I didn't actually mind, so no need to apologise. Imagine everything I say with a derp face or something._____________________________________________________Well it is the last round now, so I feel I have said everything I need to, so my only option here really is to counter your Pac-man system being a different system.No, I still do not think it is a different system. The first thing to note is that it is a 2-D system, but that does not mean that it cannot be expanded to a 3-D system. So in the Pac man game, you can only move left, right, up or down, but translated to a 3D system, you would be able to move left/up simultaneously, or right/down. All that has happened is that you have added an axis to the space co-ordinates. Objects can still move through space in both systems.As you pointed out, the walls are solid, as in our system. That suggests that mass and all of its implications also exist.So between motion and mass, which both comply to our system in the real world, you have encompassed a vast vast amount of our quantified observable phenomena, including but not limited to, mechanics, inertia, mass, velocity, space-time, the list goes on.With regards to gravity, it can be implied from mass; there are no masses large enough in the game to disprove it, anyway. It could certainly still exist in a 2D system. With regards to atoms; how do you know it has no atoms? Perhaps we can't observe it from outside of the system? With regards to physical resemblance - well, as I pointed it out, it has a lot of similarities.I never played KSP so I can't comment with much authority, but resistance in a real sense is also affected by the bulkiness of the object (wind resistance, parachute effects), not just its mass. So that may have been able to compensate for the lack-of-light speeds. However, again, this can just be interpreted as the changing of variables, not a different innate system of rules.______________________________________________________________________Anyway, I have enjoyed, though I am glad it is over - this one was long winded. We shall leave it to votors to decide :)Take care.
Do we live in the matrix

Okay, sorry it's taken a while. I've been swamped. Anyway, let's go: Sorry for trying to refute your greatest argument that you had already admitted was faulty. My bad. Anyway, on to the GTA5 argument... You say that the base physical system is the same as our own, with only minor changes to the game. I agree, as I didn't realise you meant the WHOLE physical "engine" should be different. I will refute this with a game called pac-man. If you haven't heard of it, crawl under a bed and die (kidding). Pac man runs on a physical engine entirely different from our own, and if any of the Pac man(s) or Ghosts were alive and self conscious, then they would only understand the second dimension which they live in. Furthermore, Pac man has no gravity, no atoms or much physical resemblance to our world at all. The only similarity between the game and real life are the walls forming the maze (can't go through walls) and movement itself. That is really it. Therefore, again, it is entirely possible for humans to create systems completely different from our own. Maybe even this dimension which we live in is a lower dimension then that of our creator(s), and we therefore can't comprehend their dimension (like pac man). Now if you made an entire existence (like a simulation) with the same sort of foundation as pac man (with self learning A.I. etc) then you could easily argue that a higher being or computer could make a simulation greatly differing from its own reality. Another example is Kerbal Space Program (KSP). The game is about building rockets and flying to planets etc, but there used to be a funny paradox in the game where, if you attached massless engines to massless objects, and turned the "infinite fuel" cheat on, the "rocket" would go flying very fast, yet still accelerated and didn't go anywhere near the spread of light like it should have mathematically (since it was massless, it shouldn't have had any resistance to acceleration). Now, you could argue the same about KSP as you could GTA5, where the creators only edited a small part of our physical system, while the main physical system still resembled our own. The point with the KSP example is that, we humans could easily make a game that entirely flips our reality and physical system in a game if it was done with all aspects of it (I.e. Gravity, time-space, atoms etc). I'm not aware of any game that has already done this, but I'm sure it's possible. Now, I agree that most (if not all) our arguments are based on logic and opinion rather than actual evidence, which I accept fully. Like I said before, this is entirely hypothetical and unfalsifiable, so no evidence is needed unless making separate claims regarding it (I.e. "It is Impossible to create A.I." or something along those lines.)
Do we live in the matrix

Yes, I also said that my greatest argument was flawed because it didn't disprove anything, which is why I went on on a different track too. But it was also related to the argument which followed it.The basis through which I said that even if we did have an overarching 'creator' above all of those sub-computational worlds, it would still mean that we had no true creator and even above that creator was simply a system with no creator, was through my reasoning on creating said worlds.No, GTA5 does not run on a different physical system to our own. The base physics for the system is the same as our own; it is simply that some of the variables have been changed. So, to use your example about the building, they simply created buildings made of materials with infinite hardness and flawless foundation structure - still the same physical system. To use GTA3 as an example - you know how you could do those super awesome ramps; same physcial system, but gravity and resistance was lowered when the car was in the air, allowing it to travel further than it would realistically travel in our world.So games, or, our current virtual systems, do not disprove my postulation that we are unable to create systems which do not follow the basic physical phenomena of our own world. And so, I also postulated that our overarching creators wouldn't be able to create our system, unless they worked on a system like ours, in which case, they are, going along the same reasoning, just creators who initially belonged to a binary-information universe with no creator; so they aren't true initiators. And no, my postulaion cant be verified (that you require a computational-like mind to create a computational like system), but neither can the existence of the matrix. So the conclusion of this debate will be opinion-based on the part of the voters who will have to decide who's argument sounds more plausible. In reality, neither argument can be proven.
Do we live in the matrix

Sorry it's taken a while. "Ok, so I presume your argument is going to follow the lines of something like this: http://www.bottomlayer.com...... i.e. That all of the problems we face in physics, mostly in quantum mechanics, is because we have a projected image which is the space around us that we observe, and it is computed as we observe." Yeah, kinda. I'm not exactly sure how our "projected imagery" works (if it exists), but your definitely on the right track. Your greatest argument seems to be flawed, as you admit that it doesn't disprove that we live in a matrix, but instead rules out the need for an intelligent being beyond our existence to create the matrix, which I accept. Now you say that, because it is theoretically possible for humans to create an artificial simulated reality, and because we are (possibly)code, then both our simulation and ourselves could be code. If that is the case, what is stoping our creators from also being code, and their creators likewise in a infinite series of simulated realities? Good point. Like you said, that universe would simply be an infinite binary soup. All I can say in argument really is "But we don't know if our creators are indeed also made of code". This argument is, indeed, very weak. I admit that. I shall try to not use any arguments that depend on circular reasoning (I.e. We can't demonstrate that our universe is simulated or not because it's simulated) I have to disagree with your point that "humans are probably incapable of [creating systems different from our own]; our virtual realities are still mimics of our own world, and it is likely that our simulated worlds would be too." Not necessarily. GTA5, for instance, has a feature where buildings are indestructible, even if you fly a jumbo jet into one. Now, in real life ("real life", heh heh) this is absurd: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" Or even the fact that GTA5 has an infinite sea, and crossing the "invisible boundary" causes any vehicle you have to break down and sharks eat you. Now this is, again, unlike reality. So creating systems that differ from reality is entirely possible. But what you said lastly is very interesting: Do you need a computational type mind to make a computational based simulation? I guess that depends on the being or computer creating this simulation, which can't be verified. (I've got a feeling this is going to be a long debate...I probably should have made this 2 rounds but anyhow...)