BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scientists Never Falsify Data

I will be supporting the Pro side, and will prove that scientists have never falsified data. Definitions: Falsify: To alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead. Scientist: one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge, and who performs research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms. Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Data: facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis; information. My rebuttal to you is that there has never been a single scientist that has falsified data because: 1. Scientists "engage in systematic activity to acquire knowledge, and perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature" by definition. 2. Knowledge is " facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." 3. Data is "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis; information." 4. Knowledge and data are synonyms when used to mean facts and information gathered together from experiments. 5. People who falsify data are falsifying knowledge, and therefore are not adding to the "comprehensive understanding of nature", and therefore do not fit the definition of scientist. 6. People who falsify data are not real scientists 7. Real scientists do not falsify data. Anyone who falsifies data and claims to be a scientist is just an impostor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks! :)
revolution in america

Hello,I accept the opposition in this debate, and would like to being my case for Con by asking a series of questions to my opponent regarding his initial remarks.Can you provide documented and definitive evidence that the following has taken place?- That Habeus Corpus has been suspended.- That free speech has been suspended.- That Martial Law is in effect for some northern states.- That the DHS is buying up massive amounts of guns and ammunition. - That FEMA has setup internment camps.- That the government holds people guilty until proven innocent.In fact, if we examine your remarks you mention twice that all of these claims are nothing but speculation, or appeal to the idea that some people believe them. When any person who has spent more than 20 minutes on the internet will discover that people hold to all kinds of crazy beliefs, and the contention that someone believes it does not lend the argument any more weight.Until documented and substantial evidence is provided in regards to the points here mentioned, your entire grounds for a revolution (a rather extreme position) I contend that we should not start a revolution agaisnt the USA off of speculation and no evidence.The burden of demonstrating so is on my opponent.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
revolution in america

in the days that have preceded us, there have been many things that have been very alarming to say the least. with the suspension of habeas corpus, ndaa act and the suspension of free speech in certain areas, our freedoms are being taken away at a rate that is rivaled by fascist dictatorships of old. our country is being gripped by a team of foreign banks that are lining the pockets of our politicians in favor of handing this country over to some very bad people. while this is speculation at this point there are many who hold these views to be true. also there have been reports of " MARTIAL LAW NOW IN EFFECT" signs by the truckload in some northern states. combine this with the police units becoming highly militant, the massive buy up of guns and ammunition by DHS (dept of homeland security), and the designation of internment camps by FEMA, you have the recipe for what could be the biggest takeover by the govt of its people in the history of nations. as i said earlier these things are all speculation, but just as the government holds people as guilty until proven innocent, so i will do with them. these are some of the reasons we need to stand up and take this country back from this increasingly tyrannical, overreaching power. there are many steps to doing this, not just taking up arms and doing these things with violence. the first step is to reach out to fellow Americans and attempt to "wake up" as many people as possible. such is the reason i am typing this now. this is my opening debate.
All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

I find it fairly interesting regarding how part of this debate's main focus has shifted to the greatest motivation for scientific research. My opponent's argument this round consists of his interpretation on why scientific research is conducted. He concludes that scientific research is carried out because "[scientific research] elicits a specific emotion in the head researcher and they feel it will be beneficial to the overall goal. The people that carry out the process of sanitizing the lab and working with hazardous material are likely just doing their job to get paid. Their motivation to complete the work is based on money that they can then use to fulfill their own emotionally sparked original ideas that may very unrelated to the topic of the research, like building a family." To summarize, my opponent asserts that researchers pursue scientific research either because they want to benefit to society with their findings, or because they want to be paid to "fulfill their own emotionally sparked ideas... like building a family." My opponent tries to connect emotion into the idea that scientists, or anyone who is employed, has a job either because they wish to pursue their interests or get money to do things such as "building a family." Though this somewhat connects to my argument on how scientists construct theories and conclusions through experimentation and calculations, rather than emotions. To refute my argument, my opponent argues that it is because scientists derive theories and such from emotion. However, clearly, scientific theories are constructed through observations in experiments and factual information. My opponent concludes his argument by arguing that ideas, such as scientific theories, are constructed through a process where a "Person experiences stimulus -> stimulus elicits emotions -> Person translates emotions in a logical presentation of words -> other people understand the logical interpretation of words and call it an idea."My opponent's argument, in summary, argues that all ideas are a "logical interpretation of emotion" because emotions are supposedly the basis of all ideas. However, my opponent ignores that ideas such as mathematical equations and scientific theories are almost entirely founded on factual information. For example, the quadratic equation is an equation for a curved line on a graph. In no way, shape or form is this affected by emotions, but rather variables. In conclusion, not all ideas are logical translations of emotions. This is shown to be the case in things such as scientific theories and mathematical equations, which are founded almost entirely on factual information. Though, as my opponent argues, this ideas might be fueled by emotions such as curiosity, they do not form the basis of these ideas.
All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

My opponent has attempted to refute my claims regarding how scientific theories and facts are derived from emotion by using the example of Charles Darwin. He claims that, because every man was offered the same opportunity to study nature as Charles Darwin did, and because Charles Darwin interpretted certain scientific observations differently than others, his theory of Evolution was an idea derived from emotion. He also adds onto this to say that sciencific study for "each individual was a spark of wonder and desire to make logical sense of this wonder." For this statement to be true, we would have to assume that every scientist loves pursuing their work, and that they work solely for the thrill of working, which is untrue. The strenous task of trying to set up a labspace that is sanitary and will not affect their intended results, the potentially hazardous reactants and tools they might use, and the responsibility to have to repeat this experiment multiple times to confirm their results is not something that all scientists might not give people a "sense of wonder," but rather be tiring. I do not believe that all scientists pursue their studies with a "sense of wonder," as my opponent argues.For example, Isaac Newton did not come up with the theory of gravity simply because he imagined it, but, as it goes, an apple fell onto his head, which gave him the idea that it was natural law that things would fall down, rather than fly up. Yes, it was curiousity which led him to construct the theory of gravity, but ideas derived from emotions did not help him create the theory of gravity. Instead, the theory of gravity was constructed with ideas derived from experiments and scientific observations. In conclusion, yes, emotions can inspire scientists to pursue experiments and their studies, but emotions cannot dictate nor construct the factual evidence and ideas which are yielded by experiments and interpretted into theories.
All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

I want to emphasize that I specifically meant all Original Ideas are logical and practical interpretations of emotion. I say original because in this philosophical world we are currently attempting to speak in, the motivation for repeating some else's idea is likely that individual trying to use another's idea to help achieve their own, topically unrelated idea. Scientific theories are a great example for this debate, particularly because most people think science is conducted absent of emotion, and because I am trying to prove emotion is connected to all ideas. In contemplating some of history's most monumental scientific theories, Galileo's theory of gravity, Benjamin Franklin's discovery of electricity, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and Watson and Crick's theory/discovery of DNA, we can understand the truth and importance behind them. In our time we regard these theories as concrete facts. However, these theories were not regarded as facts during the time each man first created their theory. I'll use Darwin as my main example. Charles Darwin created his theory of evolution using the scientific process, first starting with an observation of the natural world that kick started his research. My argument is that all of man before him was offered the same opportunity to observe the natural world as Charles Darwin. Now, either observations of the natural world elicited a different emotion in Charles Darwin than they did for all other man, or observations of the natural world elicited the same emotion to any person that saw them but Charles Darwin logically interpreted the observations in a different way than any else had ever done before. It seems reasonable that one day Darwin was struck by a sense of wonder from his observations that lead him to make sense of this emotional wonder and explain it to the world using science as his medium to do so. Talking about the practice of science in a broad way, I feel comfortable saying that the start of the pathway to scientific discovery for each individual was a spark of wonder and desire to make logical sense of this wonder. Furthermore, this sense of wonder must not be lost while conducting the scientific process in order to accurately separate fact from fiction. Although this sense of wonder is not lost through the process, it changes with each new observation and new piece of information which leads to new ideas of how to pursue this wonder and realize the completion of the experiment. Once the experiment is completed the sense of wonder in the conductor is replaced by a different emotion, perhaps feelings of satisfaction and pride. Once that emotion of wonder is gone the conductor of the experiment will no longer have ideas that will further the experiment in question. In summation, ideas in science are derived from emotion the same as art (for example) but they are interpreted and expressed in a very different way from art.
All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

Idea: any conception existing in the mind as a result of mentalunderstanding, awareness, or activity.Though I will agree that some ideas are logical interpretations of emotions, or a thought based on one's emotional state or one-sided perspective, I will argue that not all ideas are derived from emotion.I will argue that ideas such as scientific theories and facts are not derived from emotion, but rather scientific observations, hypothesises with a logical basis, and tests.
All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

I present that all original ideas are a logical and practical interpretation of a certain feeling or emotion. Specifically that the formation on an idea takes place with an undeniable relationship to emotion and is expressed in the physical world to either prevent a specific emotion or in reaction to a specific emotion. An example of how this could happen is as follows: A stimulus elicits an emotion -> the human mind interprets that emotion to form an idea -> then the human person expresses that idea in the physical world. This is a free-form debate and the con will argue that ideas can be formed absent of emotion.
Sola Fide is Scriptural

How would you dispute James 2:14-26? "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe"and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
Sola Fide is Scriptural

I am defending the position that scripture teaches we are only justified by faith apart from any works of the law. To be clear, I am not saying that good works are unimportant or that Christians should not do them. I believe true faith always results in good works, but the good works do not merit our salvation or even contribute any merit. Nearly all would agree that faith is necessary, so I simply need to demonstrate that it is this faith alone that saves by grace. Con may go first with arguments.
Sources for Monarchy Debate

Round 1: 1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 19-20. Print.2. Ibid 343. http://en.wikipedia.org...; "Direct Civilian deaths(Due to military action): 946,2484. http://en.wikipedia.org..."Civilian Deaths due to Military activity and crimes against Humanity: 37,585,300to 55,207,000"5. http://en.wikipedia.org...Estimated 114,000. 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 36. Print.8. http://en.wikipedia.org...;9. http://en.wikipedia.org...10. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_March_to_the_Sea 11. http://en.wikipedia.org...12. http://en.wikipedia.org...;13. http://en.wikipedia.org...; 14. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...; 15. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 46. Print.16. Ibid, 5817. Ibid, 50-54 18. Ibid, 56-5719. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...; 20. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 278-279. Print.21. Ibid, 46-4722. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sources for Monarchy Debate

I'm betting that one or more of these videos will make you happy: http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...;
sensation killers/terrorists should have their human identity stripped

i confess i am at a bit of a loss - i've been going through the forums to determine which is the proper protocol for a forfeited round but no luck. therefore, i will simply restate my original point, which was that sensation killers - those for whom the thrill factor and the chance of immortality via notoriety is a significant aspect of their crime and not to be confused with religious or political terrorists who have subsumed their identity already "for the greater good" as they perceive it - should have their human identity stripped and their identity blocked from broadcast by the media. if such individuals were aware that their very existence would be erased from history as a consequence of their action(s), i believe it would be a deterring factor. such measures would also protect their family and loved ones from retribution by an outraged and hysterical public. so, um... vote pro. thank you.
sensation killers/terrorists should have their human identity stripped

oops - thank you - first debate here and guess i didn't explain it as thoroughly as i thought. i meant specifically sensation killers: school shooters, movie theatre shooters, that kind of thing. it doesn't even count as terrorism bec there is no particular goal except death to as many as possible - at least political and religious terrorists have statements and demands and may even give warning first. the law that would apply would be the same law responsible for maximum sentences - ie, the maximum sentence possible, death penalty, life without parole, etc - and the stripping of identity, disposal of the body, or the face-blocking mask would be added to existing sentences. the identity block, really when i think about it, should be mandatory from the get-go, since in today's global internet society, once the wrong person is tagged even by accident, they're in for a world of hurt. identity should be media-blocked until a guilty verdict is determined.
sensation killers/terrorists should have their human identity stripped

it's clear that sensation killers - those who cause maximum terror and destruction - are in it for the fame. they'd rather go down in flames of notoriety than as the sad sack losers they really are. i believe such criminals have effectively revoked their human and constitutional rights. i say they should be denied. governments should pass a law that not only blocks the media from publishing identifying information, but should strip such a criminal of his human identity. no name - just a random character string. no grave - body burned and scattered over a landfill or in the ocean or buried at an undisclosed location. if they are caught alive and sentenced to life without parole, it's in solitary confinement with a blank mask that cannot be removed except under general anaesthesia. this would not only remove the temptation to achieve notoriety by topping the last atrocity, but it would protect friends and family who don't deserve to live with the fall-out of their actions and allow the friends and family to remember their loved one as they were.
Samsung is better that Apple

My opponent has failed to provide a single rebuttal. I, therefore, extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged. In order for Pro to win, he needs to provide rebuttals that defeat each one of my (now) six counter-arguments. Until he does so, the resolution stands negated and I win. VI. Samsung stole (again) Apple technology and made it worse.Take a look at this article, specifically #8: http://phandroid.com..."When Apple introduced the fingerprint scanner in the iPhone 5S, for the most part, it was done well... the Galaxy S5 uses a similar security feature. Only problem is in their implementation, you actually have to slide your finger across the home button, not simply press it... This means every time you go to unlock your phone, you’ll have to use 2 hands to do it."Two-hands! I ask the audience, isn't that like totally last-year?! I can unlock my iPhone with one-hand, Samsung obviously steals and ruins great things.
Samsung is better that Apple

My opponent has forfeited Round 3. I extend all arguments which remain standing unchallenged.IV. Samsung contributes more to global waste than Apple.Samsung’s total shipment volume for the first quarter of the year came to 85 million smartphone units, more than the next four competitors - Apple, Huawei, Lenovo and LG - combined. Do you know what this means? It means that there will be 85,000,000 phones that are all eventually going to end up in the trash, more than the next four competitors combined. That's a major contribution to the global waste epidemic we are facing. How could such an evil ever be considered "better" than someone who is contributing less to that horrible issue. V. Apple fits better in your pocket.I don't think anyone will deny that Samsung phones are extremely annoying with smaller pockets. They are large, cumbersome, and cause you to feel uncomfortable in your own clothing. In conclusion, My opponent now has five arguments to rebut in order to win this debate.
Samsung is better that Apple

I. Stock ValueFrom March to September this year, Samsung stock went from $1,100 to $1,500 and then back down to $1,100. [1] This is a major loss for many investors in the past 6 months. Apple went from $70 to $100 and is still on the rise. [1] http://www.marketwatch.com...[2] http://www.marketwatch.com...Not only that, but Samsung price for stock is absurd - mostly due to being based in South Korean markets. Samsung div yield is only 0.09% whereas Apple's is 1.87% - massive difference and clear win for Apple. II. Samsung stole from Apple. "On May 2, 2014 Samsung was instructed to pay $119.6 million to Apple for smartphone patent violations." Please see link for full details. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...III. This debate is more than just product vs. productPro fails to realize that one phone doesn't mean the company as a whole is better. Pro needs to expand his scope in order to win.