BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stock Market is a Random Walk

I will argue that the market must be random in the sense that it cannot be predictable on a quantum level because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Let me begin with probability density. See Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org..., if you don't know what that is. We can give a probability density p(x) such that p(x)Δx is the probability that a particle will be found between x and x + Δx. We then specify the velocity of the particle by means of a probability density p(v), with p(v)Δv the probability that the velocity will be found between v and v + Δv. It is one of the results of quantum mechanics that two functions p(x) and p(v) cannot be chosen independently, and cannot both be made arbitrarily narrow. If we call the "width" of p(x) curve Δx, and that of p(v) curve Δv, nature demands that the product of the two widths be at least as big as the number h/m, where m is the mass of the particle and h is a fundamental physical constant called Planck's constant. We can write this basic relationship as follows: [Δx][Δv] must be greater than or equal to h/m This equation is a statement of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. From it follows the fact there is a necessary uncertainty in our specification of the position of a particle. In essence, it requires that the world is unpredictable. Therefore, on a quantum level, I argue that the market is in fact unpredictable. Because the quantum level is the fundamental level of the physical world, I argue that all other levels of description can be reduced to a quantum level. And therefore, I argue that the market is unpredictable on all levels. Below, I quote Wikipedia's article on the principle, for those who want to hear this from another place: "Heisenberg Uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. In other words, the more you know the position of a particle, the less you can know about its velocity, and the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the less you can know about its instantaneous position. "According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty." I will now hear the arguments of my opponent.
Stock Market is a Random Walk

I contend the financial market (listed products - including but not limited to; stock, options, and futures) is not strictly a random walk and will allow my opponent to have the opportunity to prove that it is. I contend that the market is predictable with a certain degree of probability, under certain circumstances and certain degrees. Prediction may included, but not limited to; direction, volatility, and/or time. The ability to predict any and/or all variables will prove that the market does not STRICTLY behave based on a random walk hypothesis. While I do contend the market is always a perceived value until actual value is resolved (in the two extreme cases in which the value is absorbed or removed (taken over or busted)), additionally outside influences are measurable as well as market pricing based on order flow. In these cases (but not limited to), the market (with enough data) is predictive with in degrees of probability in one or more variables. In order to win this debate the opponent must be able to defend that the market is strictly a random event. The opponent must support a random walk hypothesis that the market prices are completely random. The market is not predictive at any level or degree. The opponent must not defend his/her position by asserting that any prediction is mere luck and thus supports the random walk hypothesis. 1. Random Walk Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org...... As this is my first debate, I hope that I have made my opening argument clear. Thank you...
Professional athletes on the same team should be paid equal salaries to improve team performance

First, "lazy" athletes don"t make it to the professionals. Ever! Their life is the sport, and there"s room for little else. They"ve likely done little else in their entire adolescent and adult life aside from the sport. There simply is no place for laziness in professional sports, and it doesn"t exist. If ANYONE is going to be lazy, even for the day, it"s the guy making an exponentially greater amount of money who"s already set for life and doesn"t NEED to win that one game to maintain his reputation. So we can fairly discard that argument. Even adequate players work their asses off to get and stay where they are in professional sports. Second, the inevitable egalitarianism that would follow would make a much tighter unit on and off the playing field. The "lazy" guy who"s maybe not as good as the guy volunteering to make less money because he wants to be on a cohesive, winning team, will likely work harder out of respect and admiration for that guy who"s taking an ethical position and trying to create genuine camaraderie which will lead to a close-knit team that produces wins and championships.
Professional athletes on the same team should be paid equal salaries to improve team performance

Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers, who, granted, is objectively a tremendous player, was paid about $35,000,000 in 2017 for playing in 27 games out of the season's 162 games, which comes out to about $1,300,000 per appearance. In comparison, teammate Yasmani Grandal, a starting catcher (arguably one of the most physically demanding positions,) was paid about $5,500,000 in the same year for playing in 129 games, about $43,000 per appearance, and about a sixth of what his teammate made that year. Logistically speaking, the major salary disparities throughout the lineup of any professional team can't possibly be good for individual morale, which ultimately affects the morale of the team and their outcome. And it's not like that even the best catcher is likely to ever make anywhere near $1,300,000 per game anytime soon, or even $35,000,000 a year as a starting player. The highest paid catchers of 2017 were Buster Posey of the Giants, who was paid about $22,000,000, and Joe Mauer of the Twins, who is the highest paid catcher of all time, earning about $23,000,000 in 2017-still about 35% less than the highest paid player, Kershaw. So having the opportunity to make more by improving performance is not an option, and thus seemingly unfair as their is no opportunity. Obviously everyone here is making obscene amounts of money, however that's not necessarily relevant in an environment where that is the norm. And the point of this debate is not about feeling sorry for privileged multi-millionaire athletes, but about what is fair, and what is most effective for a team's success. Certainly the initial high of making even a base salary of about a half a million dollars in MLB must be pretty exhilarating for any new player, however, eventually it's going to pass and they'll begin to wonder why a teammate, who is apparently an equal, on the same mission, is being paid 536% more than them for arguably doing less work, (playing only about 20% of the number of games) and having a less significant impact on the team's fate for that season. Statistically, a player who plays in five times as many games is going to have a greater impact on the season than a player playing 27 games. So, in conclusion, paying every player on the team the same salary, or at the very least, an approximately similar salary, is going to improve morale for the individual and consequently the team, which is paramount for any team's success.
Some people says that, mobile games are affecting our generation and should be ban

Let's look at your statements shall we? "~Are you sure games we play on mobile or console designed for brain-training to solve problems? Children play games for entertainment and problem solving is something different. refer the articles which clearly shown the bad effect of digital games." First, problem solving skills develop naturally. I'll throw you an example of something else that portrays this as well. Pretend you're a blacksmith. You Swing a hammer against metal all day. Not only do your skills with working with metal improve, but also you become stronger, an indirect positive outcome. Second, your sources weren't that reliable. Ehow was the most reliable, however "SCMP.com" talked about TOO MUCH screen time. What about moderation? If parents moderated their children's play time, there wouldn't be that many bad effects, if any. CNN isn't reliable at all but ignore that and look at THEIR signs. They aren't too good and in fact common sense should already tell you when you're "addicted". "In addition to bad results on academics, purchase games and add-ins generate credit card bills. http://venturebeat.com...; What about the population of people that can afford games? Are you going to take their right to have fun because they have money and others don't? It's their money, let them spend it. It's up to YOU to make choices about this stuff. To further add, you're mad at people for making money? The revenue is 3 billion dollars (USA). That's USEFUL to the ECONOMY. By BANNING MOBILE GAMES HURTS THE ECONOMY. Now to make my points. Read this http://www.theesa.com... The gaming industry is a constantly expanding empire and even grew faster than the US economy (Not surprising) and PROVIDE JOBS TO PEOPLE. Because it grows so quickly, more jobs are needed. BY BANNING MOBILE GAMES OR GAMING BUSINESSES, YOU ARE GETTING RID OF JOBS. The gaming industry also added $5 billion dollars to the US GDP, which is a VERY good thing. Still refuse to believe it can help? http://www.wired.co.uk... Even the UK can't avoid the positive influence of the gaming industry. Yes, it's gone international. Still can't face the facts? http://www.businessinsider.com... There's no denying. The gaming industry has a positive impact. Here are some jobs that the gaming industry needs to run successfully. http://www.ccs.neu.edu... In Texas, 1700 jobs were created. How you wonder? The gaming industry. Further proving my point, it creates jobs. http://www.mlresearch.org...
Some people says that, mobile games are affecting our generation and should be ban

Thank you for accepting. 1. "Based on bad concept that I presume negatively affect our children correct? Look at this [http://abcnews.go.com......] According to this video games actually help. Problem solving being one, which is one thing that can help you in school. Problem solving is really mostly what the schools make you do anyways. Solve this problem and get a good grade, correct? Problem solving isn't limited to school, but also your daily life. By playing games (mobile or console) WITH MODERATION your kids will develop problem solving skills. It also teaches that failure is okay sometimes. Start again and keep practicing and you will get better. This is also perfect for school. When a student gets stuck on a question they might wanna give up. Those who play games are less likely to succumb to failure." ~Are you sure games we play on mobile or console designed for brain-training to solve problems? Children play games for entertainment and problem solving is something different. refer the articles which clearly shown the bad effect of digital games. http://www.ehow.com... http://www.scmp.com... http://edition.cnn.com... Not even children, adults are forgetting their personal hygiene because of full concentration on game what he/she is playing. Some reported restlessness and/or irritability when unable to play, preoccupation with thoughts of previous online activity or anticipation of the next online session and lying to friends or family members regarding the amount of time spent playing. What more information I need to give to explain this? 2. "I did research and guess what. GAMING IS NOT A BIG CULPRIT. That's right games are not the biggest reason why students fail tests. I went to multiple websites and gaming was not on there. Actually when I directly looked up if gaming was a reason why they fail tests no plausible (reasonable) results actually popped up." Failing is the worst case but games are effecting study concentration and later on bad performance in exams. refer the link http://www.parentingscience.com.... In addition to bad results on academics, purchase games and add-ins generate credit card bills. http://venturebeat.com... Children ignore their spending on games that is raising funds for game companies but their parents are paying bills. That is really bad for some families those poor and such bill create problems for them. Here is the link of game industry stats of commercials. http://www.gamesindustry.com... Moreover, addiction of games create a distance in family members because of addiction we don't give time to our family.
Some people says that, mobile games are affecting our generation and should be ban

I accept this challenge Let me highlight your statements. "Mobile games should be ban, because most of the games are based on bad concept which is affecting our children." Let's check the grammar and spelling. "Mobile games should be ban" is not correct. It should be "Mobile games should be banned*" Next the inner details. Based on bad concept that I presume negatively affect our children correct? Look at this [http://abcnews.go.com...] According to this video games actually help. Problem solving being one, which is one thing that can help you in school. Problem solving is really mostly what the schools make you do anyways. Solve this problem and get a good grade, correct? Problem solving isn't limited to school, but also your daily life. By playing games (mobile or console) WITH MODERATION your kids will develop problem solving skills. It also teaches that failure is okay sometimes. Start again and keep practicing and you will get better. This is also perfect for school. When a student gets stuck on a question they might wanna give up. Those who play games are less likely to succumb to failure. "Teenagers are affected mostly, they are not giving adequate time to their study and as a result getting high pressure at the time of exams and getting bad score." Let's look into that shall we? I did research and guess what. GAMING IS NOT A BIG CULPRIT. That's right games are not the biggest reason why students fail tests. I went to multiple websites and gaming was not on there. Actually when I directly looked up if gaming was a reason why they fail tests no plausible (reasonable) results actually popped up. "Moreover, working person also addicted with mobile games." The first part of my argument explains this. "They spent all idle time on mobile games and some cases it has been observed that, they are losing concentration at work place because they wanted to play game to achieve a level in the group." Another flaw in grammar. "at work place" should be "at the* work place" Also without sources to prove there were tests and observations there is no support to this argument.
Some people says that, mobile games are affecting our generation and should be ban

Mobile games should be ban, because most of the games are based on bad concept which is affecting our children. Teenagers are affected mostly, they are not giving adequate time to their study and as a result getting high pressure at the time of exams and getting bad score. Moreover, working person also addicted with mobile games. They spent all idle time on mobile games and some cases it has been observed that, they are losing concentration at work place because they wanted to play game to achieve a level in the group.
Live pigeon shoots in all fifty states in the USA should be legalized.

I dislike any law that is "All 50 states" except the constitution. If you want to shoot, poison or kill pigeons, knock yourself out as far as I'm concerned, but it's not a use for federal power. Local people should get to decide the fate of their pigeons. Our whole problem is that we have too many laws for "all 50 states" when we should only have the batch in the constitution. It doesn't say anything about birds, so states and local people should decide if they like pigeons or not. Another problem you have is that pigeons love an urban environment and shotgun fire in a city isn't a good idea. You could invite the pigeons to join you in the country, but I doubt they'd take you up on it. 1. There are more effective ways to kill pigeons than to shoot them. 2. There is no constitutional basis for the federal government doing anything except defending the constitution.
Live pigeon shoots in all fifty states in the USA should be legalized.

Pigeons are annoying birds and good target practice. Also pigeon shoots can be put to good cause as fundraisers. The proceeds could go to fund cancer research. Finally, liberality is a value of the USA. Why wouldn't we want to maximize freedom by legalizing pigeon shoots in all fifty states? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[1]. Live pigeon shoots in all fifty states in the USA should be legalized, vote Pro. http://www.ushistory.org...
My Debate.org username is psunsrox

I propose that your debate.org username is not in fact psunsrox. I have an infallible argument supporting my proposal. You profile didn't provide a lot of information, so I googled you. I discovered your name is Alan. I deduced that you are in fact, Alan Parsons(1), audio engineer, who worked on such classic albums as The Beatles "Abbey Road" and Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" because the all-powerful google.com came back with Alan Parsons when I searched for "alan psuns". However, your profile states that are a fifteen year old American boy. The video on psunsrox youtube (2) page shows a young boy. Yet, your pictures show a panda. Yet you are Alan Parsons. These anomalies can only be explained by you having the ability to travel through the various multiverses (3) using some kind of anti-matter (4) powered teleporting devices, such as a Delorean, which opens, uses and closes worm holes in the Space-Time Continuum(5). Thus, the person who posted this argument is not in fact psunsrox, but more likely an Alternate Alan from another universe. Thank you, I look forward to round 2. RESOURCES (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.youtube.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best Joke Contest

Ok, this is my joke. Q:How do you stop a baby from crying? A: Hit it with a brick. I like this one because the question sets you up in two ways; you either think that it's going to be something stupid, but then it gets to the conclusion, and you realize that it's messed up, or; you can tell that it's going to be messed up, so you assume the answer is something like "kill it," but you end up with something more detailed, which is a lot funnier. And yes, like you, this is for the 3 debates. 😀
Torture is the future for investigation

There will be three rounds in this debate. First round is mainly for acceptance and rules however, I will also state my opinion as a start on the debate . You just have to say "I accept". Please do not start your arguments until the second round 1. No forfeits 2. No new arguments in the final round, though extra explanations of arguments already explained is allowed; R1 is just for acceptance 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No K's of the topic 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss I strongly believe that torture is the future for investigation, since it is the most effective way of getting information out of an inmate. Definitions: Torture - The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something Investigation - The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research Effective - Successful in producing a desired or intended result Successful - Accomplishing a desired aim or result
Therapeutic

What's therapeutic cloning? It's essentially the process of extracting an egg from an adult female, getting a somatic cell (not a sperm) from someone else, extracting the nucleus of each, placing the nucleus of that somatic cell into the egg, and inducing it to divide. So Con is not being very accurate. It does eventually become an embryo, but that embryo would never exist without first going through this procedure. Life was created with no other possible purpose in mind, and that life would never have existed without the therapeutic impetus. I'm not sure what "new black market" is going to form, since this requires huge investment, but since many countries have black markets for organs, it's all beneficial, since it will lead to fewer people selling necessary pieces of themselves to survive. The medical benefits are many for stem cell transplants, including organ regrowth. Countless lives can be saved by this technology. http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk...
Therapeutic

Did you know that therapeutic cloning will actually kill a embryo that could one day become a person. This is important because people need to know more about biotechnology and its hidden information that doesn't always get heard. Some of the jobs available in this department are therapeutic recreation specialist,rehab therapist, nuclear medicine technologist, athletic coaches and doctors. In my opinion therapeutics cloning should not be allowed because it kills a embryo and it could start a new black market.
Therapeutic

I apologize for my terse post last round, and applaud Con's willingness to reengage. Con ignores my points. Extend saving lives. Let's look at those links. NCBI is a great resource, but it includes a wide variety of papers, many of which disagree with you. Having provided no specific paper, it doesn't support your point. As for the weebly link, I have no idea who posted it, but there's no sources at all. It also supports all my points. I don't know where Con's getting this sale of embryos when adult stem cells work, but even so, where's the harm in their sale? Con never explains how this is damaging. He even provides a corollary that works for me - surrogacy is a way that women in developing countries can earn money, and it provides children for couples that can't have their own. Selling embryos to save lives through organ regrowth is a win-win as well. I'm not sure why "gods will" matters, nor do regulations make it inherently bad. The harm of tumors is minor and unsubstantiated.
Therapeutic

Therapeutic cloning should not be used women would one day start to sell there embryo for money similar to the way in which women can get paid to carry another woman's eggs in under developed countries such as India. Also many people are against it saying that it is against gods will. Many country have made it illegal or put regulations on therapeutic cloning Cells can mutant which can cause tumors in some people. Here are the websites in which I got my information from. http://humancloningproject.weebly.com...... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
dogs are better than cats

Cats are better than dogs, why? Well cats are not nearly as messy as dogs, and they enjoy to snuggle with you, such as when you are reading a book they will curl up on your lap. Big dogs cant curl up on your lap, and they can destroy furniture way easier than cats. Cats are less expensive to feed, and they have cute little whiskers. Dogs drool, cats don't so you can see why Cats are better that dogs.