BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gross Output vs Optimality In Economics

Hey Andy3692, You said that this was more of an inquiry than a debate, so I'll just proceed as if this was a friendly conversation. So first off, I don't think that gross output is necessarily focused on in industrialized nations. It's a big part of it, but profitability is the main focus if we're talking about economic agents within an economy. The economy is simply individuals choosing what to do with the scarce resources and means presented to them. So, if people are focused on the economy, they're not necessarily focused on gross output, but on the allocation of scarce resources. Sure, one of the largest measures of the economy is GDP, but this is a very blunt tool that is only useful because of the other things that an increase in GDP implies, such as an increase in living standards. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "industry is focused only on gross output, and not net output." If you mean that firms are not focused on the negative externalities associated with their operations, then that's one thing. Societies should be focused on the entire set of costs, some of which may be borne by third parties as negative externalities. Government regulation is one way to address this, establishing clearer lines between property rights is another. But I don't think that people are only focused on output, and that being concerned with the economy means you're only concerned with gross output. In fact, I would argue that it is the poorer nations that are more concerned with economic growth as opposed to sustainability. What you"re calling "net output" might be more aptly labeled as "welfare", which is a fairly large piece of economic analysis. This sort of accounting method of weighing the goods of production with ALL the costs is already a massive component of economics and anyone "concerned with the economy." "Are there exceptions to this that is evident in industrialized nations?" Again, I"m not exactly sure what you"re talking about here. Are there exceptions to what? Perhaps you could clarify. "When would gross output be more sustainable than net output? Well... if you"re talking about measuring the full costs of production, then such operations are "profitable" to society when costs are smaller than benefits, with costs being ALL costs including pollution, or other negative externalities. As far as sustainability in a societal sense, then follow the same guidelines. If society is better off having produced than if they haven"t, I would say these things are sustainable. Again, we're running into some problems with the wording of your questions. "When would gross output benefit the world in the long run?" I think you should clarify your stance and what exactly you mean by gross output vs net output. Ps. What course is it you're taking?
Gross Output vs Optimality In Economics

Hello everyone, This is more of an inquiry than a debate. I am taking this college course, which emphasizes that we should focus on optimality as opposed to gross output in industrialized societies. The professor defines optimality as a balance between economy, society, and the biosphere. For example, we cannot simply focus on society and its needs, as we would bankrupt ourselves. Similarly, if we focus solely on preventing global warming, nations would spend too much and also bankrupt itself. So, as of now, society is concerned only about the economy, because on the surface it makes sense. We can gather wealth over time, and prioritize what we spend with that wealth through politics. This is why the industry is focused only on gross output, and not net output. It has the sole intention of producing as much as possible, and mitigate the end-of-pipe effects later on, or pass it entirely to society altogether to avoid having to deal with them. Or to summarize, net output is better than gross output because it takes into account the long-term consequences of all industries, and is more "optimal" in terms of the definition above. ie. less landfill costs, less harm to biosphere, society enjoys the progessive movement of businesses and mirrors the business's actions, etc. So, my question is this: Are there exceptions to this that is evident in industrialized nations? When would gross output be more sustainable than net output? When would gross output benefit the world in the long run? Provide specific examples. Thank you
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

First, let me say that I'm an anti-theist, but I wanted to give this a shot. Pro has argued that Pascal's Wager is flawed and provided a "gist" of the wager. The determination of "flawed" cannot be ascertained based on a "gist", but on the Wager itself. The Wager is as follows: Given that we cannot know with 100% certainty either the existence of God or non-existence of God. Given that if God exists, there exists an afterlife with consequences derived (for good or for ill) based upon the individual's belief in God - with positive consequences for belief and negative consequences for disbelief. Given that rational beings will seek to maximize benefit/minimize harm to themselves. Therefore, a rational actor will choose to believe in God, as if God does not exist, there is no afterlife, and if God exists, failure to believe will result in highly negative consequences. This argument is logically sound, containing no fallacies. Therefore the argument is logically flawless. QED
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

First, I would like to say I'm not against religion, but when it comes to an argument as absurd as this, I would think I'd rather be against it. The gist of Pascal's Wager is that people should believe in Christianity just because if it happens to be wrong, there will be no risk. For the people who believe that statement I ask," What about the thousands of other faiths?" Wouldn't you have to believe in those, just to make sure you are safe. If there are so many faiths, why would it be yours or nothing? In summary, there are a lot religions, so you cannot be justified in saying that it's either Christianity or nothing in the end. My finishing question is, " What if your god isn't the right god?"
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

My opponent has shifted the debate around. I will put this simply. Without the law anarchy reigns supreme. Absolute anarchy that would cause much chaos death and destruction. From this it can be concluded that we need law. Since we need law we also need people to agree to and follow the law. This concluded people must follow the law. That is one reason wy vigilantes are criminals. No one for any reason should break the law even to uphold the law. My opponent states that it is our duty to disobey the law when it becomes corupt. But this is folly, once people break the law once they may break it again for convienience. They may break it for fun. By letting someone break the law for any reason you encourage the growth of the idea to break the law to many people for many reasons. Humans are very good at justifying their actions. This means that humans msut never be allowed to break the law. Ever.
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

It would seem that my opponent is trying to draw me away from the center pint of this debate. So rather than being drawn away I will now directly attack why disobedience to the law can be acceptable. Disobedience to the law is acceptable when the law become corrupted. For example. The American revolution. America was being abused. Wen the Americans tried to obey the law and talk peacefully and in accordance with the law, to the king, they were rejected. It became the colonists duty to rise up and to declare independence. In short it was acceptable to disobey the law because the law turned viscous. The law was used to help a tyrant practice tyranny over his subjects.
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

If ones religion says that they cannot kill another human being then they cannot kill another being without breaking the law under any circcumstances. In the case of Ghandi. His supproters did not kill another human being. Why? Because they did not belive in that. Instead of fighting to defend themselves they stood thier ground and where slaughtered. Not only does this fullfill the religious they have that the yshould not kill but it also is a much more powerfull example than that of when people have resisted. In the case of Hitler. My opponent failed to realize that Hitler violeted humanities laws. He defied the law of the interantional community and caused vasts amount of turmoil and death. Had Hitler not violated certain fundamental laws ww2 would never had ocured. I will now bring up vigil antes. A reason exists why vigil antes are considered criminals. It's because they break the law by decideng to deal with criminals in a way that they decide best. These vigil antes decide that what they think is more important than what the majority thinks. When this happens it just causes more trouble. The vigil ante must be a hypocrite and break the law to stop others who break the law. This is a formula for anarchy. If many more people decided to become vigil antes then a new order would start taking place. Society would break down and the law which protects all of us would become meaningless.
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

My opponent argues that one should never break the law. Well, I obviously disagree. Provided those who break the law sometimes commit atrocities. In some extreme cases like Hitler, those who broke the law left deep scares in history. But to say this as an absolute statement is folly. Are their some laws that should never be broken? I would say yes. But often times extenuating circumstances allow for certain rules to be broken on occasion. But let us take into account something with alittle grandeur. My opponent started off big using Hitler. So I shall also use Hitler. When Hitler cam to power he imposed many laws into Germany. When Hitler took over other countries he would impose his laws onto them. If the inhabitants of those countries had simply bowed down and taken those laws, if all the people of Germany and hose of captured countries had simply bowed to his rules and laws then imagine the chaos the world might be in today. Had not the people under Hitler's control resisted the war would have been a lot worse for the allies. But aside from that I will now move onto a smaller example. Killing. It is against many religions to kill. If that were so then nobody who believed in said religion could kill which would mean that if a war came or the individual had to protect him or herself. They could not kill their opponent. Provided war and defending oneself is a nasty affair and I shudder to think what I would do had I to kill another human being. But in many of those same religions people are allowed to protect themselves whether it be struggling with a murderer or fighting a war against Hitler. With what I have said I will now await my opponents argument.
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

It is my opinion that disobedience to the law is never acceptable. One would always follow the law. Disobedience even civil disobedience undermines and corrodes a government and almost always leads to loss of life. If one wishes to change the law they should do so within the means that the law provides. One should never act against this system because when this occurs you get characters who decide that they are more right than their neighbors, and when this happens you have a majority of one. When this occurs you get people like Hitler who history generally agrees was (to say the least) a horrible person. He decided not to simply defy local law but to defy the laws of society and humanity itself. He committed atrocities like the concentration camps and on top of that caused the deaths of many people through a war that spanned the globe.
disobedience to the law is never accpetable

I will again use the example of the American revolution. May I remind my audience that the shot that started the war is also called the shot heard around the world. It is called the shot heard around the world because the American revolution had global impacts. One of these impacts is that other nations revolted. As a matter of fact revolts are prevelant throughout the history of the word. Now I will pose and then answer the question, why do people revolt? A comon answer is that they revolt because they are oppresed and they seek freedom. Black slaves in America revolted, the American colonists revolted, and so many other people revolted. Back to an earlier point the Americans revolt caused other countries that were oppresed by the British to also revolt and to gain freedom. This was a good thing. It gave numerous people across the earth freedom. Revolting is the peoples way of restoring order. It is the peoples way of ridding themselves of a corrupted law and creating an uncorrputed law. Now for your vigilante. I will take a fictional example. Batman. Inparticular the Batman from the recent movies Batman begins and Batman the dark knight. Batman im these movies is a vigilante, and he does at first cause chaos. But after the chaos the law is reinstated better than before and their is more order in Gotham than there was before. Refereing to Batman it was acceptable for him to break the law by taking the law into his own hands. Just as it was acceptable for the American colonists to revolt and break the law by taking it into their own hands. Now let me touch on yet another example that I mentioned before. Here in America many African Americans broke the law through civil disobedience. Looking back that was a good thing because they obtained freedom for their future childred. To wrap this all up the revolts and civil disobedience almost always cause violence, loss of life, anger and many other things. But ultimatly they benefit not only those who obtained the great goal of winning the conflict but also many of their future generations to come. Thank you for a very good debate. Having said all this I conclude that sometimes it is acceptable to break the law. http://www.theamericanrevolution.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.earlyamerica.com... http://www.google.com...
Marijuana is not a harmful drug

I guess I will now say why I did better then my opponent.Most of my information was reviewed and approved by Scientists and Doctors. I know that many of the facts that I have stated, I know are true. I am not saying that some of your information isn't true, but much of it contradicts what I am saying. I really dont have much to say on why I should win this debate, because it is not up to me to decide.
Marijuana is not a harmful drug

My opponent has brought up many points in their original argument. I will attempt to address all of them.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal: "It is used to reduce, pain . . ."Although it is common to hear that marijuana reduces pain, it is just another myth most likely propagated by pro-marijuana organizations. The website Medical News Today explains that instead of reducing pain, it makes it more bearable by "affecting people's emotional state in a way that makes pain less awful.". [1] In addition to this, researchers from Mayo Clinic recommend that teenagers with chronic pain do not take medical marijuana. [2]Rebuttal: "It is used to reduce, nausea . . ."As I stated earlier in my original argument, cannabis does not help with nausea; rather, it leads to a syndrome known as that cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome which causes severe nausea, stomach pain, and vomiting.Rebuttal: "It is used to reduce, stress and increase appetite . . ."On the contrary, cannabis has been shown to increase stress in many people; even causing panic and anxiety in some instances. As the website Anxiety Panic Hub puts it, "Marijuana is recognised as being one of the causes of panic attacks and anxiety, and we think it is important to highlight this.". [3]As far as increasing appetite, if someone is nauseous (see my original argument linking cannabis to nausea/vomiting), they are most certainly not going to have an increase in appetite.Rebuttal: "It rarely causes car accidents . . ."Actually, Columbia University researchers found that marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010. [4]Rebuttal: ". . . it calms the nervous system, so it [is] not very likely that someone is going to murder someone."As I have stated above, it does not calm the nervous system. Rather, it creates anxiety and, in some cases, panic.Sources:[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[3] http://www.panicattacks.com.au...[4] http://www.usatoday.com...
Marijuana is not a harmful drug

Thank you for laying down those rules. Some of this is of my own knowledge.Many of the things that Marijuana helps It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health according to a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association in January 2012, marijuana does not impair lung function and can even increase lung capacity.Marijuana use can prevent epileptic seizures, a 2003 study showed. A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007. Most well known is that weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite (2)Marijuana is known to DECREASE nausea, vomiting and any stomach discomfort. They you medical marijuana for chemotherapy clients. (1)Second Argument Conclusion Many people are sick and marijuana is way that can help them, but are unable to get it. Legalizing marijuana will make it available to those in need of it. Good luck on your rebuttal! I'm looking forward to seeing your argument.Sources:(1) http://www.webmd.com...(2) http://www.businessinsider.com...
Marijuana is not a harmful drug

Because they did not set forward the rules, I will go ahead and do so:1. ) No trolling!2. ) Have proper debate etiquette!3. ) Use reliable sources! Layout:FIRST ROUND IS FIRST ARGUMENTSECOND ROUND IS REBUTTALSTHIRD ROUND IS WHY YOU DID BETTER THAN YOUR OPPONENTPro argues that "Marijuana is NOT a harmful drug"Con argues that "Marijuana is a harmful drug"Below I will present my first argument that marijuana is indeed a harmful drug. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Effects on the BrainThere have been studies done that show the use of marijuana can contribute to negative effects on the human brain. The website Narconon says this, "In 2012, scientists in Australia performed brain scans on 59 long-term marijuana users and compared them to the brains of people who had never used the drug. The marijuana users showed structural changes that were similar to changes found in people with schizophrenia. " [1] Effects on the StomachUse of marijuana, especially when used often, is known to cause severe nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain. A condition triggered by the use of marijuana known as cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome is the cause of it. [2] Unfortunately, due to the legilisation of marijuana in Colorado, the condition is on the rise. First Argument ConclusionThe job of my opponent is to rebut my first argument in round two. I look forward to your rebuttal and good luck. Sources:[1] . http://www.narconon.org...[2] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Lincoln Douglas debate is the easiest debate type

Lets get cracking then. .. Contention 1: Lincoln Douglas is mainly philosophical, and therefore theoretical. The reason I believe this plays a large role in this debate is because since it is (for the most part) theoretical it doesn't require as much evidence in a case. Due to this reason it is easier to attack against a case in Lincoln Douglas as oppose to Policy or Public Forum. In a theoretical debate you can also have an attack that is theoretical, it just must be able to trump their argument. The reason I believe a Lincoln Douglas case is mostly philosophical is because generally speaking a Lincoln Douglas debater will build their case around some sort of philosophy. Since philosophy is theoretical they build their case around theoretical questions and answers making it easy to attack their cases. Contention 2: Lincoln Douglas is a one person effort. Lincoln Douglas you are required to care about one person and one person only, YOU. In Policy or Public Forum you must also watch after your partner, making it harder to debate because you also have to try and help your partner as well as prepare yourself. In Congress debate you must help people to whom you have ties with, and be on good terms with others. If you only focus on yourself in Congress and arrogant to others they can turn against you repelling your bills. Lincoln Douglas requires you to only care about you and nobody but you.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

Responses: >> "WTC 7 might have fallen slightly sideways but it did not lean very far at all as both your own pictures and the video prove." As you can see in the photo of the debris above, the debris extended across the streets and onto the buildings to the sides of the lot where WTC7 stood. And of course, by your own definition, a building that falls outside its own lot did NOT fall in its footprint. >> "If the collapse of a WTC 7 was so simple, wouldn't the explaination be the same no matter who investigated? Wouldn't it be easy to understand? There are enough questions surrounding WTC 7 to provide more than reasonable doubt..." What questions? I've answered the ones you've posted here... *********************************************************************** The simple fact of the matter is this: When the North Tower collapsed at 10:28, debris ripped a hole approximately 20 stories high in the South face of WTC7, setting it on fire at the same time. The fire then burned out of control until 5:20 - almost seven hours. By 2 PM, it was obvious to firefighters and other personnel on site that WTC7 was going to collapse. The mechanics of the collapse point towards a failed support in one of the lower floors. One of the articles above gives a strong case for the collapse of Column 79. Another possibility is the failure of one of the cantilever beams that supports the portion of the building over the power station. The collapse of one of the columns is more likely, as it explains the visible kink in the penthouse and in the North wall of the building as it collapses. Please also note that if the building was brought down by explosives, my opponent must address the following from the last round: 1) Why use explosives on WTC7, but not on 4, 5, and 6? 2) The objection to using explosives on 4, 5, and 6 was that it would be unsafe for workers to enter the buildings. WTC7 was damaged far worse. Why send workers into 7 to plant explosives? 3) Why plant explosives since many people that had been inside the building and seen the damage said it was going to collapse on its own soon anyway? 4) If using a controlled demolition, why not purposefully topple the building to the south into the rubble from WTC1? Why bring it straight down, causing more damage to the surrounding buildings? ************************************************************************* Readers, I have answered all my opponent's objections to the notion that WTC7 collapsed as a result of the damage from the collapse of WTC1 & 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building. He has asserted that there are still "bizarre occurrences and inconsistencies" that surround the event, but curiously has not presented any of these... and, of course, in the spirit of fair debate, he cannot present these in the last round where I have no chance of rebuttal. Nobody will ever know for certain EXACTLY what caused the collapse of WTC7, but there is enough evidence to pinpoint the cause of collapse beyond a reasonable doubt. AFFIRMED.