BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

You almost make a good point, but it is flawed. Point 1.) A person chooses to be a mailman or a garbage man or a repair man. For the example of a mail man, the mail man to the best of my knowledge is aware that he will be making deliveries to various homes and businesses. if the mail man learns that his job requires him to make deliveries to a business that allow smoking and he disapproves of putting himself at risk of inhaliling second hand smoke then it is up to the mail man to talk to the owner of the business and ask him to forbid smoking because it is putting me the mail man at risk of lunge cancer every time I the mail man make a delivery to the business. If the business owner chooses to continue to allow smoking then it is up to the mail man to come up with ways to persuade the business owner to change his smoking policy. For example get support from fellow mail men to also confront the owner. Maybe picket the business on their days off or whenever, shows sighns of what lung cancer can do, maybe even have a strike, their are many different ways to persuade people. If worse come to worse the mail man should tell his boss that he does not want to do the deliveries anymore if his boss sends him anyway then it is up to the mail man to either keep trying to persuade the business or find another job that is less hazardous for his health. Good luck! I think an important message to remember is what seems to be the RIGHT choice NOT the easiest choice. Point 2. So you want to make it a law to ban smoking in private businesses. Ok, well then what about the car you drive, what about the factory down the road spewing loads of god knows what into the air of huge proportions. What about every combustion engine in our country spewing out poisonous co2 such as chainsaws, weedwhackers, dirtbikes and so many more. Should there be a law against my neighbor mowing his grass because I could be breathing the exhaust from his lawnmower? When will the laws end, if we had it your way we would we will eventually have so many laws that it will be against the law to move.
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

The crux of your argument seems to be that businesses should be exempt from laws protecting their patrons from themselves. While I have no problem with people's suicides, I don't believe that a business that serves the public should have the right to facilitate it. The problem is...smoke is carried on the air. Last I checked, people need to breathe. So, what about the workers ? Sure, they don't HAVE to work there. What about delivery people ? Mailmen ? Garbage Men ? Vendors ? Repairmen ? By allowing smoking in an ongoing business that serves the public, it in essence becomes a toxic zone for anyone that steps foot in the premises. Government's job isn't too protect people from themselves, but from hazards. That's why we don't have buildings made with asbestos or lead paint anymore. And cigarette smoke, in it's current form of being carried on the air, contaminates all around it and creates a toxic environment for all that need to breathe. To say nothing of walking in front of the doors that when open will allow a waft of smoke to escape and make it's way to some passerby's lungs. It should most definitely be banned in restaurants.
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

People do not have to go to a business it is thier choice. though it may be more convienent for people includding my self to eat in a smoke free environment that doesn't make it right. The right sollution is for people to ask the resteruant owner to make it a rule that their is to be no smoking if the smoke is bothering them or find another resteruant. And if there is no other smoke free resteruant near by then people should maybe tell the owner that they will not be eating at their resteraunt and or eat at home or somewhere else that they can find smoke free.
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

Hi italia. If I've repeated myself, it is because my message is not getting through. I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it. I've looked at it from an employer/employee standpoint, a public health standpoint, a governmental oversight standpoint,etc. Your main position has been "well, you can always avoid it (smoking places)", to which you admitted that there is the problem of containment so that it may be impossible to avoid inadvertently. Your 'avoidance' theory is naive at best, and irresponsible at worst. You seem to think that people should be able to do whatever they want if they own the business. Using your logic, if a business-owner wants to have gasoline in open containers on their property (a legal substance), they should be allowed to. They can't because it is a hazard. It is the governments job to protect the public from hazards. Your other arguments are that education should solve all the problems. I've shown that the 'education' is there. Can you really say with a straight face that people don't know the dangers ? C'mon, like Phil is fond of saying, I've got a bridge to sell you. You yourself stated that the education (from more than one source) helped you to quit. You keep repeating that I avoid answering your objection about making everything else illegal (cars, etc). I have answered that numerous times, but I'll say it again. Cars cause less than 99.9% of cancers. The sun causes more than that. Shall we ban the sun ? Cars, weedwackers,factories, etc. were all created with a main purpose. Cars, transportation. Weedwackers, landscaping. Factories produce goods. Cigarettes, when used as DIRECTED, cause illness and death. Period. It is the combination of LEGALITY of the substance and social acceptance that we are even having this debate. Smoking is the #1 avoidable health risk. Because it is carried on the air, it not only endangers those that smoke, but also those that do not. The government has the right to regulate the WORKPLACE and THE PUBLIC HEALTH both of which smoking impairs. Period. Your 'solutions' are non-solutions. Eventually smoking will be illegal. Until it is across the board, the government has a right to regulate businesses open to the PUBLIC both from a safe workplace environment standpoint and a public-health safety standpoint.
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

First off, I am very sorry for the loss of your mother lvisman, that really is sad and I guniunly feel for you. I believe you and I want the same thing, we are looking out for the best interest in people and want to make the best choice to ensure peoples safety, and health and what is best for a society. My sole argument right now is that your sollution to the problem is flawed. We both believe in the same problem and I do not know for a hundred percent that my sollutions are correct but what I feel I do know is that your one sollution is incorrect. The fact that you can not come up with a solid answer to respond to my comment that if business are banned from allowing smoking then every other thing that comprimises a persons health unwillingly should be banned as well, is means for me winning the debate on the that fact alone. You can not come up with a defense because no defense exist. To Recap: My argument is this: If we ban business from allowing smoking because the second hand smoke could go out side the private property line of the business and comprimise a persons health who is walking on public property, then why is there not a law that would ban all combustable engines or anything else which would comprimise a person health without a person knowing and or consent. lvisman has no logical response to my argument, he continually tries to justify his claim by saying "Smoking serves no useful purpose." yet he has no response beside repeating him self to my response which is that there are countless instances of useless use of other things that produce poinsonous gas just as smoking does. How is the purpose of smoking different then the purpose of joyriding, riding a dirtbike, playing with a gas powered remote contolled air plane, going sport fishing in a gas powered boat, the list is endless. No one person can proove that the purpose of smoking a cigarette is greater then the purpose of going on a joy ride in a hummer. Are we going to make a law against joy riding? We are going to need alot of laws. Is joy riding "mis using" a Hummer lvisman? Some people like to take joy ride to relax, somepeople like to smoke in a bar, both have the potential to harm innocent people. My sollution: take a 100% cigarette tax money and use it to fund smoking provention and smoking education about how harmfull it is, if people are still smoking then the education methods need to be adjusted not give up on the people. I needed people to have faith in me.
Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Opponent's argument are in bold and italic, mine are in plain text. "You are excluding my brothers back in Africa and other third world countries? What if those people want to be vegan too? They have a RIGHT to choose what they eat. Saying that only first world whites should get that choice is extremely negligent and ignorant."RonaldTrumpkinThis is a separate issue and thus a red herring. The availability of medical care and food is more scare in 3rd world countries and thus complicates the issue. Testing of b-12 supplements and administrating the b-12 supplements is necessary for some individuals. I am unsure if 3rd world countries have reliable access to such testing and supplements.Of course they have a choice in what that eat. As for the last sentence that is a straw man fallacy. [4] I never mentioned the word whites in my r1 nor r2 arguments. Thus you are attacking an argument I did not make. "Because my opponent is racist by not mentioning third world countries and refuses to even have the thought that they should have the ability to choose what to eat i will not waste my time with this f*cking idiot." RonaldTrumpkinI wanted to exclude 3rd world countries from the debate because of the increased difficulty in receiving proper levels of b-12. You then make the same straw man argument you made in the previous round followed by an ad hominem attack. [5] Calling me an idiot is an attack to undermine me and not my argument. Finally, I indirectly referenced 3rd world countries by mentioning the enviorment. Since the enviorment affects everyone both first and third world, as seen in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. [6] 4. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...5. http://literarydevices.net...6. http://www.imdb.com...
Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Structure 1st round brief statement of position and acceptance. 2nd round main argument 3rd round rebuttals 4th round defend your r2 argument against opponent's r3 rebuttal. Thanks for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Exceptions, rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be stuck on a desert island or in an elevator shaft. 1. http://prime.peta.org...
Determinism is self-defeating

In this debate I will argue that determinism is a self-defeating belief. Determinism: the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens. http://www.merriam-webster.com... That is the definition that will be used for the purposes of this debate. Once this "challenge" has been accepted, I will lay out my full case with premises and a conclusion.
Determinism is self-defeating

In debating the fact that determinism is self defeating I would claim that it was my opponent in whom the discussion became pointless, as he was only able to accuse myself of not understanding how "good reasoning works". He simply could not explain how a deterministic view was not self defeating, and attempted to deploy smoke and mirror tactics by again accusing myself of circular reasoning. His links provided little content to this debate and would have been better off not mentioned. I have used logical arguments in this debate and have provided scientific evidence to support my claims. Section 1: My opponent proceeds to complain about "generalizations" and makes no rational claims that determinism is self defeating. Section 2: Every event is necessitated by previous events. if there are no previous events akin to other events, then there can be no predictability in the universe. /my opponent's premises fall flat on its face by admitting this fact. 1)if the scientific evidence I have provided does not indeed prove a deterministic universe then please by all means make a scientific argument against that. /My opponent has done no such thing throughout the entire debate. 2)??? 3)In order to evaluate scientific evidence you have to presuppose your own capacity to be rational. Since the question of rationality is logically prior to scientific research, arguing for rationality from scientific research is circular. /My opponent must also belief that a Copernican model is circular reasoning as well (no pun intended) 4) It may be asked, what is Con's beef with psychology, and why is that relevant to the question at hand? I have already supplied a working definition of belief, so it should now be clear what is meant by the word. /My opponent questions the rationality of science continuously while simultaneously has no objections to a rationality of his own psychological phenomenon known as "belief". 5) "if a=b and b=c then a=c." Contrary to his earlier rejection of logic, Con now seems to be a true believer in logical theory! However, this does nothing to prove that determinism is not self-defeating. /Says You! That statement is utterly ridiculous. I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and I am glad he found this debate rewarding as well. That being said, I have found that my opponent had no sufficient evidence to his claim that determinism is self defeating. I have provided a plethora of content to back up my arguments as my opponent has not. I would urge anyone with the idea that determinism is self defeating to seriously review the data at hand. Thanks again.
Determinism is self-defeating

Section 1: The nature of debate My opponent has stated that he would like to keep this debate running smoothly, and yet will still entertain the company of ambiguous semantics disguised as "logical fallacies". I would like to refrain from accusing another debate member of circular reasoning especially as I have taken the con side of this argument. Determinism is in no way self defeating not even one iota, and yet my opponent seems to think he can still press on forward in a house made of straw. There are no logical contradictions or false beliefs to be held in any debate when it comes to the matter of determinism. There were no fuzzy discussions of logic that took place until my opponent conveniently placed them into this debate to distract from reality. My purpose of coming into this debate was to defeat any claim that determinism is self defeating, and nothing more or nothing less. My opponent claims that this debate will come down to nothing more meaningful then if A therefore A since the conclusion is in the premises, which is completely fine by me as that is a completely rational stance to take. The only claim my opponent can make against the argument of determinism is an event of chance, if somehow a=the obscure. Since he has not provided an example of chance we can disqualify him from any present argument. section 2: Premises which are in question, and premises which are not. My first premise was If determinism is true, then each person's beliefs have been pre-determined. belief is a fuzzy word, and i suppose that my partner would like to argue with fuzzy words considering he can not make a scientific case as to how determinism would be self defeating. My third premise (An argument for causal determinism presupposes rationality") has not been successfully refuted either; indeed. arguments for casual determinism includes the fact that you can not make rational claims unless there is a predictability of sorts. Otherwise the world just becomes a lottery ticket, and thus there can be no rational claims. section 3: what about premise 2? 1. scientific evidence is not rigorous proof? 2. hmu when you discover every single cell in the human brain, and we can become nobel prize winners. 3. scientific evidence presupposes rationality? 4. again with the beliefs. you have no evidence that a belief is nothing more then a psychology. prove to me that a belief is anything more then a psychological phenomenon. 5. yes, if a=b and b=c then a=c. conclusion b will follow from premise a. thank you for proving that determinism is not self defeating. I look forward to hearing pros final reply. works cited http://www.philosophypathways.com...
Determinism is self-defeating

Thanks for your prompt replies as well raymaster. Premise 1: Thanks for clarifying about the relevance of schrodinger's cat. I would like to refrain from arguments over logical fallacies as this is not a linguistics discussion, but a scientific based one. The reason that I have brought schrodingers cat experiment into conversation is because it is impossible for any notions of free will to exist and thus automatically makes determinism not self defeating. Simultaneously, only within a function collapse of a superposition could any notion of free will ever exist. A universal will and a will to power exists, however as nietzsche's sister famously proclaimed it is not free. Premise 2: There is no way to sufficiently or empirically prove that belief is held rationally if it is pre-determined. You can only simply view events in a historical sense, i.e. the allies won world war 2. humans are a different animal because we have much different capabilities than any other great ape. We can only find efficient ways to use intelligence. Premise 3: Is there a rational basis for determinism? In the article you previously cited the writer states "The case for free will is clear; it is a self-evident, directly perceived fact". I feel as though his arrogance is showing because the human brain contains ridiculous amounts of particles so any thought experiment regarding any future notions of free will is fallacious. The author seems to base his philosophies upon his personal perception which I find to be deceitful. The author then again attempts to critique determinists like Sam Harris and company to pursue his own agenda, but i feel as though he misses the mark completely. works cited http://arxiv.org... http://www.youtube.com...
Determinism is self-defeating

Premise 1: If determinism is true, then each person's beliefs have been pre-determined. It seems as though my opponent is begging the question. There is no belief to reject a deterministic universe, however there is a universal will that exists but it is made up of precedent events. for example if jane were to cook a turkey for thanksgiving dinner would she have only cooked this meal in this context? would she have always cooked turkey on thanksgiving? Maybe if she had lived in the 1500's her style and meal of cooking would very much different than last thanksgiving. She would not have changed her mind unless there were to be a different context of sorts. Same rule applies to any newtonian framework. if gravity exists the pull wont exist unless another context exists, i.e. gravity to jupiter or io or such. Premise 2: If a person's beliefs have been pre-determined, then they are not held rationally. I would challenge my opponent to debate any other determinist and to claim that they are not rationalists or rationally thinking. My opponent claims that "all choices are simply events in a great cosmic machine which operates according to the laws of nature. " He simply puts the cart before the horse presupposing that choices were not influenced by another event and so forth. He then begins to challenge scientific data in regards to making a rational decision about the universe. If a scientific theory is proven false there again exists a framework that will correct itself. Premise 3: An argument for causal determinism presupposes rationality. Those who argue for the existence of determinism are making rational arguments, and therefore determinism is not self defeating. Thanks for posting the first round and be on with round 3! works cited http://www.informationphilosopher.com... http://www.ucl.ac.uk...
Determinism is self-defeating

Thanks for posting this argument raymaster. I accepted this debate, because it will be you that has the burden of proof as it is impossible for determinism to be self defeating.I would prefer to use stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's definition of casual determinism as I find merriam-webster's to be faulty. SEP defines casual determinism as "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." If you accept my modifications to this debate than we can continue on. Happy debating! Works sort of cited http://plato.stanford.edu...