BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

DefinitionsAddictionMy opponent tries to finally offer a definition for addiction in round 3. However she admits that her definition depends on the individual, making it impossible to objectify, unlike my definition which has an objective standard of harm. She has also failed to refute my definition of addiction throughout this entire debate, so we should prefer mine.CaseSince both of my definitions stand I would like to extend the first contention of my case that definitionally negates the resolution. Note that my opponent has never opposed this contention. Right here you can negate.Rebuttal1. Broken Heart SyndromeI'm just going to drop this line of questioning because it has come to the point where my opponent will not admit that anything other than cancer is a disease. She has not answered why the real consequences of broken heart syndrome should not be taken into account.2. Traditional Idea of DiseaseI would argue that the traditional model of disease is irrelevant to this debate. I offered a definition for what a disease it that was never refuted. Thus, my definition is what we shall look to, not tradition. An insurance company or governmental policy neglecting to cover addicts does not deny the condition the status of being a disease.3. ChoiceMy opponent again argues under the premise of choice but has failed to refute my evidence that states genetics cause 40% of alcoholism. You see, choice is not the only factor, some people are born destined to be alcoholics.ConclusionEven with a fourth round to be had, this debate is over. We've come down to simple rehash of old arguments. Here's why I have won.1. Definitional Negation: An addiction is a disease by definition. This is never refuted, thus conceded as true.2. The crux of my opponent's case is that addictions are not genetically influenced but never answers my evidence that 40% of alcoholism is caused by genetics. This undermines the very premise of her arguments. She has no offense left in the round, I do.
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

To refresh my answer Addiction (depending on the individual) may be any compulsive act repeated over and over. Now I ask my opponent, why is it that when real consequences are taking place, Broken Heart Syndrome would not be considered a disease? My answer having a "broken heart is not a disease " the heart itself before some emotionally feeling arose was perfect does not make for a disease one simply can't be defined a a real disease.then we could say a compulsive hoarder who refuses to part with anything' if you pick apart the underlying cause you may find this person has an emotional disorders NOT technically a disease but rather a set of imbalances due to a traumatic occurrence that must be corrected or rewired in order to release these habits. http://www.schaler.net... http://www.thecleanslate.org... This physical change of state is balanced by the arguments that addiction is simply an unwanted behavior, a behavior that doesn't fit the traditional idea of what a disease is. At some point before it becomes a condition over which a person has no control, addiction involves choice and human free will. To that end, it cannot possibly be categorized along with conditions such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or other neurological diseases.The question is an important one because both medical treatment and insurance reimbursement are diagnosis driven. Standards of care are drawn up based on recognized disease states. Insurance companies make decisions on what they will cover by looking at standard treatment plans for approved diagnoses. Government policies are also influenced by how you define addiction.Proponents of the choice model of addiction argue that the consumption of drugs or alcohol is a choice, and that just as people can choose to take drugs or alcohol, they can choose not to.
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

First let me clarify the definition I believe to cause "addiction" alcohol - drug usage and cigarettes(since I smoke therefor I am addicted to them.I also drank so I speak from my own experience.I drank 13 yrs ago and never touched it after I quite on my own.For sake of argument alcoholism runs in my family.I have no desire to drink either "the difference is the person does not go looking for a 'quick chemo' fix." This is easy to understand When person I'll call subject(A) walks in for a radiation treatment they understand full well there'll be certain risks(hair loss what comes to my mind) yet they accept knowing heir life depends on it other wise they may die plus the quality of their life is diminishes based on my second hand information.Now subject I'll call(b)could be perfectly healthly otherwise is driven by feelings now they might be out of this world trips(FEELINGS alone) to he drunk they drink for many a reasons to forget-job loss-you should get the picture by now all this is brought on by self do they really need this to survive??? ask yourself this first will they die without this ? this is the difference between a cancer patient and the local drug addict most professionals will tell you this that they suffer from a "disease" well take our as they consume year after year well they now have siroccos of the liver(yes this now is a "disease" could this have been prevented? by sheer will power by overcoming the feeling they achieved from being out of control? or was there a gene that forced them to drink out of control? remember my opening statement) I'm sorry, but what are you trying to say? That cancer patients do not look for quick fixes and thus addiction is not a disease?
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

FrameworkFirst, as my opponent has opted not to offer definitions, I offer the following:1. Addiction [1]: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful2. Disease [2]: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptomsFor the remainder of my speech I will first attack my opponent's case and then propose my own. Rebuttal"the difference is the person does not go looking for a 'quick chemo' fix. "I'm sorry, but what are you trying to say? That cancer patients do not look for quick fixes and thus addiction is not a disease? "The persons who are addicted CHOSE to do that to themselves and do not. .. suddenly have a affliction stemming from genetic disorder""The risk of addiction is in part inherited. Genetic factors, for example, account for about 40% of the risk of alcoholism. " Addiction is not always voluntary. It may, at times, be a disease afflicted through genetics. Furthermore, many people who have STDs who arguably received them because they "chose" not to use proper protection during sexual intercourse. By your logic, STDs are in fact not diseases because they may not be genetic. What about diseases that you catch during your lifetime wthat don't have genetic causes? Are they not diseases either? In essence, why are genetics intrinsic to the definition of disease? "It was enacted as a buffer for those who needed higher self esteem without the feelings of shame. "1. What evidence do you have that this is true?2. If this is true, does that mean all labels designed to psychologically alter perception nullify the status of having a disease?3. Why does having low self-esteem mean that you cannot have a disease? CaseC1: Definitional Proof1. Diseases "impairs normal functioning"2. Addictions are "physically, psychologically, or socially harmful"- Our muscle's normal functions are hindered when physically harmed. Our mind's normal functions are hindered when psychologically harmed. Our normal functions as citizens are hindered when socially harmed. Thus,3. Addictions are definitionally diseases. It is illogical to say that a disease is not a disease, thus is it also illogical to say that an addiction is not a disease.1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

I am stanch against any person who believes any form of addiction is a disease.I am aware of the definition and not confused between the two people who mis label themselves with a drug addiction compared to someone with a true disease(such as cancer) the difference is the person does not go looking for a "quick chemo" fix. The persons who are addicted CHOSE to do that to themselves and do not get my sympathy they do not suddenly have a affliction stemming from genetic disorder,or working in hazard conditions the people who label a drinking problem,drug addiction as a "disease" are in fact saying I'm a junkie,bar fly (etc)smooth over the truth in a measured amount. It was enacted as a buffer for those who needed higher self esteem without the feelings of shame.
American History is Full of Lies

I'm new here, And I'm not familiar with the layout, But that was just a monologue, Not an argument. My initial debate, Which made the other guy forfeit, More so pertained to the country's history within the 50 states. The additional information was just an expansion after accepting this debate. Since you took over this current debate, Then you must have read the previous arguments. I'll state it again, Why are America history books teaching that Columbus discovered this land when he clearly didn't? Did your history books speak on his crimes of sexually abusing children under the age of 13? Is it valid to say that he discovered a land when there are people who are already inhabiting the land? I guess Martin Luther King was the only Black person who tried to make a positive change. Many of the people & publications who made him out to be an admirable figure today, Hated him when he was alive & that's a fact. . . Jim Crow & the slave trade? Are you aware that half of the slave trade's history that's being taught isn't accurate? Of course, These subservient topics will always populate the history books, And that's the problem. At the same time, There is no mention of the Pilgrims' poisoned blankets that were used on the Natives, Or the millions of acres of land that were freely given to Europeans when they came to this new land. . . Dude, You spoke about the Egyptian inventions, But did your history books explain that the people who inhabit Egypt today are not the actual Egyptians from biblical times? This only scratches the surface. The authentic history is easy to attain, But most people aren't going to put in the effort.
American History is Full of Lies

I am a student myself, And I see your argument is completely wrong. First of all, We are talking about the American school education system. At school, Over the years we have learned about a lot of different cultures. "The ingenious inventions other than white people are completely hidden on purpose. " Not true. At school, We learned about ancient Mesopotamia and Egyptian inventions such as paper made out of papyrus. We learned about how gunpowder was made in China. We learned about the Samurai culture in Japan and so on. What I'm saying is that we have learned about a lot more cultures besides American culture. What "truth" are you talking about? When learning about American history, We went in-depth on the slave trades overseas. We were taught since the first grade about heroes like Martin Luther King and the horrible Jim Crow laws in the 1900s. I don't understand what the education system is hiding or why they would hide anything in the first place. Can you please tell me what the education system has lied about or has covered up?
American History is Full of Lies

Well, The title speaks for itself. American history is definitely a joke because it hides the truth via cover-ups. The miseducation system should be shutdown because its teaching students half-truths and utter nonsense when it comes to this country's true history. I simply point out facts that are well-documented, But these facts aren't being taught, And we all know exactly why this is occurring. From holidays to the motion picture industry, American culture is the biggest scam of all time. The true history of monuments aren't being told. The ingenious inventions of people other than white people are completely being hidden on purpose. These ridiculous movies like "Gods of Egypt" is an embarrassment. Not trying to be prejudice, But I've noticed that a certain ethnic group in America are the biggest culture vultures in the world. This country will never solidify into one because the frauds are firmly in place. There's an old saying, "don't believe anything you here or half of what you see. " This notion perfectly personifies what the USA is all about, And I have tons of facts to backup all claims. Whether it's wars, Natural resources, Hypocrisy, Racism or ignorance, I can find blatant B. S. By yours truly, The American people.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does a woodchuck chuck enough wood*

First off, I would like for you to clarity whether you are you arguing that a woodchuck could chuck enough wood to escape a black hole, or trying to argue that a woodchuck could chuck a set amount (where 'set amount of' means 'enough') of wood before it is sucked into the black hole? Both are generally affected by similar factors, but please choose one in the next round. Rebuttal:1. 'The proximity to the black hole causes the temporal "Thread" to slow down enough' So, you're assuming that the black hole is close enough to the trees to weaken them, but not close enough to immediate suck in the woodchuck. I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you meant by 'temporal thread', because I'm not sure what you meant. 2. 'the gravity has severely decreased the strenght of the already soft balsa wood' The only way this could happen is if the gravity from the black hole was identical to that of the dominant source of gravity for the woodchuck (presumably the planet it's on), so that there is essentially an antigravity zone between the two entities. This would essentially allow the woodchuck to pick up any amount of wood, due to it's weightlessness. However, these two entities would be moving towards each other simultaneously, and the black hole would be growing bigger at an exponential rate.(1) This would lead to a disruption in the balance, so the wood would be sucked into the black hole, along with any unfortunate mammals trying to chuck it. This would not count as chucked wood, because the woodchuck didn't actually chuck it. Statements: 1. If the tree falls and no one hears it, then the woodchuck has to be out of earshot when it hits the ground. This means that not only would the woodchuck have to chuck lots of wood, but it would first have to sprint to it, assuming it knows where the wood actually is. A woodchuck can only run about 10mph. (2) Provided it has at least some moderate hearing ability, this will take quite a while, especially if the woodchuck has to search for the fallen tree. This is all assuming that the woodchuck has to chuck at least the tree that fell. 2. Black holes grow at an exponential rate. (1) This will lead to the eventual destruction of the universe (assuming something else doesn't happen first). The point is, no matter how fast a woodchuck runs or how fast it chucks wood, it will never be able to escape a black hole. 1) http://scribblenauts.wikia.com... 2) http://www.esf.edu...
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does a woodchuck chuck enough wood*

*Finishing topic* to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole before he is sucked in? ~RULES~ 1) This is a "troll" debate but it is not to be taken lightly 2) No Profanity unless necessary 3) Round 1 is acceptance round debate starts on round 2. 4) . . . Thats it
Global Warming is real

This so called debate isn't what I was expecting, but global warming is happening not just because the fact that weather is having weird weather but the earth is warming in a substancial rate. If you have known in 2005 that 4 hurricanes have become Catagory 5 (winds of 155+)that was a record high that year. There were a record 27 named storms, of which 15 were hurricanes, exceeding the 1969 record of 12 hurricanes, and 7 were major hurricanes. Of the 7 major hurricanes, an unprecendented 4 reached category 5 status. The season was remarkable for its early beginning and number of storms as well as the intensity of the hurricanes, including the most intense hurricane on record for the Atlantic. Many records were broken during the season and a list of the most notable are available at the end of this summary. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... This was because of global warming.
Global Warming is real

I need you evidence and you showed minimum to nothing to begin. You told me that " True, damage to the ozone layer may be causing holes over the arctic, but the impact of global warming will not be great until many years in the future. It is nothing that we today need to worry about." Well I think that we worry about it now then the consequences will be less dangerous in the future. You said that " For one thing, back in the mid-20th century, the theory of global cooling arose, but as we know today, that theory was rejected." This was of the time science was beginning they had started on the new technology. To start you need to give new more info I will let my opponent continue.
Global Warming is real

This is my first debate, and I am inexperienced, but I strongly disbelieve in the theory of this so-called "global warming." For one thing, back in the mid-20th century, the theory of global cooling arose, but as we know today, that theory was rejected. Even though we may be having some ice melting in the arctic, many places around the world is actually experiencing slightly lower than average temperatures. True, damage to the ozone layer may be causing holes over the arctic, but the impact of global warming will not be great until many years in the future. It is nothing that we today need to worry about.
Global Warming is real

Well I believe that global warming is real because the temperature is steadily rising and the world won't believe that. Car emitting amounts of CO2 gas in the world. Here is the list of the top 20 CO2 Emissions. THE TOP 20 CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTERS Country Total emissions (1000 tons of C) Per capita emissions (tons/capita) Per capita emissions (rank) Growth (in %, 1990-96) United States 1446777 5.37 (1) (9.9) Peoples Rep. of China 917997 0.76 (18) 40.0 Russia Federation 431090 2.91 (6) -19.2 (since 1992) Japan 318686 2.54 (9) 9.1 India 272212 0.29 (20) 47.7 Germany 235050 2.87 (7) -12.2 United Kingdom 152015 2.59 (8) -1.1 Canada 111723 3.76 (4) -0.1 South Korea 111370 2.46 (11) 69.2 Italy 110052 1.92 (13) 1.1 Ukraine 108431 2.10 (12) -37.0 (since 1992) France (since 1992) (incl. Monaco) 98750 1.69 (15) 2.4 Poland 97375 2.52 (10) 2.6 Mexico 95007 1.02 (17) 18.0 Australia 83688 4.63 (2) 15.3 South Africa 79898 1.88 (14) 0.6 Brazil 74610 0.46 (19) 34.9 Saudi Arabia 73098 3.88 (3) 51.2 Iran 72779 1.04 (16) 25.6 North Korea 69412 3.09 (5) 4.0 http://www.ucsusa.org... Overall the U.S is the top of the list and the CO2 emissions is still coming. These gases are to blame, but CO2 can be on the list. the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market, use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide (MBr), hydrobromofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and bromochloromethane, hereinafter referred to as "regulated substances", and, in certain cases, products or equipment containing these substances; the information to be reported concerning these substances; inspections and penalties; new substances. http://www.google.com... I will let my opponent give his argument before I continue.
Tithing is a scam to fleece Christians and should be abolished

Hey no worries. Life is busy. I was just worried time would run out completely. To your first assertion that the old law is not cut off. That is not the right terminology. It is not cut off. It is completed as you said. The first covenant is completed and the second has taken its place. Did you read any of the verses I posted or just skim past them? We are no longer under the old law. Stop preaching the old laws. They don't apply. There is a reason why the old law is no longer held as a standard for anything but tithing these days. Do christians sacrifice animals? Do they stone adulterers? Are they required to circumsize themselves? These are required under the old law but not the new. So what you are saying is that we need to keep practicing tithing but not the rest of this stuff... And why is this? Are there verses somewhere that state which old laws are kept and which are tossed out? Or does the church just pick and choose the ones that benefit itself? I don't really care if you don't want to classify Abram as a Jew it makes no difference. He was a Hebrew. Abram did give a tithe to Melchisidek from his spoils of war. This is mentioned once and he never tithes again. Is this the example we should follow? Tithe one time in your life on your spoils of war. Ok I can get behind that practice. Did you know after that he gave the rest to Sodom? Should we practice that as well? It does have precedent... Tithing is not mandatory and should not only not be practiced, it should not be preached. Those who do either have no understanding of the Bible or they are intentionally tricking people into handing over their money. A true Christian would not tithe. They would give to the poor and the needy and the church as they saw fit. The sentence "obedience is better than sacrifice" is the antithesis of the Bible I hope you know that. The question of how churches will operate without guilting their congregation into giving them money does not really concern me. How did Jesus operate without collecting tithes? How did Paul? How did the apostles? They seemed to get along fine without falsely preaching their followers must pay them a tithe. You can believe the whole thing and believe that the first covenant is fulfilled and is no longer law. You do it all the time which is why you don't follow most of the old law. A true Christian would follow the WHOLE old testament. You don't get to preach some and not the others. That's what you are accusing me of doing. Woe to ye hypocrite. Tithing by definition does not come from the heart. It is a required giving. God loves a cheerful giver. Not one who is told by his pastor that he must give 10% or he is robbing God. Give freely and do so with a happy heart. Don't let anyone badger you into thinking a tithe of your money is required. It isn't.