BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

The ancient Greeks were well known for practicing the act of pederasty. They also believed in false gods and mythological tales that are quite obviously not possible in real life and defied logic. How is it then that such an insane and debased group of people have any say in what is "logical" or not? Why should we listen to anything that comes from a barbarous time in history where people assumed that it was okay for adults to make love to children? To even think they knew anything about what should be deemed "logical" or not is simply preposterous. And aside from the historical aspects of where the whole "ad hominem fallacy" comes from, the concept itself is absurd. Say if a man who has been convicted of murder says that it is wrong to murder people. Should we just take his advice the same way we would as a person who has been known to be a morally upstanding person? Because, if you ask me, that right there is the fallacy. I think not taking into consideration where a person is coming from when he or she is saying something is far more fallacious than the so called "ad hominem fallacy" could ever be.
Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

I would love to answer each and every of your point. However as we have already reached the last post - I will regretfully cut out Mr. Sowell, your statistics hunt and anagrams. 1. You have argued that random fluctuations will sove the problem in future. That is a fallacious argument which is statistically unlikely. You said: "However, because Yiriminots always have a chance of succeeding, and Yarimjots have a chance of failing, over time, the two races will be equal. " And also: "However, trying to fix a problem quickly rather than over time results in people who aren't qualified for a job. .. " This argument is flawed because - it is equally possible that children of Yiriminots in higher brackets will fail. Moreover children of Yarimjots with lower income are also likely to succeed. Indeed, the fact that Yarimjots dominate the economy - makes it more likely that children of poor Yarimjots will succeed and children of rich Yiriminots will fail! So the problem is not going to be fixed, until conscious efforts are made to fix it. 2. You also said: "Relatively more intelligent? The Yarimjots had more education, which directly contributes to higher intelligence . .. " I am talking about the inherent intelligence. We agree that Yarimjots are more educated - and thus will do better on any intelligence measurement system. 3. You also make another dubious effort to rescue your irrelevant logic: "However, you have admitted that Yarimjots are more affluent on average than Yirimnots. This would mean that more company executives are Yarimjots than Yirimnots. " So the only reason the Yarimjots face more problem than Yiriminots is because they are more dominant! Don't worry; this problem will not remain once effects of affirmative action percolate to executive level. You responded to my charge of exaggeration: "Maybe. I don't really know the effect, but it will inevitably have an effect, and the effect will inevitably have a downside for the economy. " It is not an effect, it is a cost. And not a major cost! It will pay rich dividends to economy in few generations as Yiriminots will be brought in mainstream and there is a larger skilled population, leading to overall growth. --- In conclusion: In this debate, we have agreed that minorities are lagging behind majority - and it is not a fault of minorities. The pro believes that qualifications are the only things which define more deserving candidates. I have pointed out that the disparity between the communities is a major contributor in disparity in qualifications and thus cannot be considered as the only criteria to define more deserving candidates. The pro believes that the problem of disparity will be solved automatically - though after a long time - by the magic of random process. I have argued that these problems will propagate and are statistically more likely to be reinforced than resolved.
Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

"Consequently - I also consider the use of the term 'robbed' as inappropriate. " Using my definition, it seems to be the perfect word. "So we start with an assumption that we are debating about a country where there is significant inequality between dominant majority and less dominant minority - which calls for affirmative action. " Alright, then. So, let's call this country Reamviatiff, with two different classes: the majority (Yarimjots) and the minority (Yirimnots). While the average income of each group is very, very different, the standard deviations are also very, very large, so that you end up with quite a few Yirimnots who are better off than the average Yarimjot, and quite a few Yarimjots who are worse off than the average Yirimnot. The top fifty people from each group all apply to work at Catino Industries. Most of the Yarimjots are well-trained for this position, as they have worked at private schools to harness their skills at whatever it is they're going to do at Catino Industries. The Yirimnots, meanwhile, don't really even know what it is that is done at Catino Industries, so they don't even bother to prepare. The Catino Industries executives all review the resumes and job interviews, and determine that it would be most profitable to hire 43 of the Yarimjots and 7 of the Yirimnots, as they were the top 50 people who applied. Suddenly, the government of Reamviatiff looks over Catino Industries' decisions, and realize how off-balance it seems. "You guys aren't hiring enough Yirimnots! Hire 18 more of them, and fire 18 of the Yarimjots, or else we are going to shut you down! " "But, Reamviatiff, most of the Yirimnots are not qualified for jobs at Catino Industries! They would require on-the-job training, and all of the Yarimjots that we are hiring already know what they are doing! The proposal you are making will lower our profit drastically! We may have to lay off even more people after that! " "Well, too bad. Just make sure you fire just as many Yarimjots as Yirimnots! " And so, the Catino Industries executive made the announcement that 18 of the Yarimjots that he had hired would be fired, and that the next 18 Yirimnots would take their place. So, as you can see, the Yarimjots prepared for their jobs, and rightfully deserved the jobs more than the Yirimnots, due to the hard work they put in. Due to the loss of profit, the Catino executive, who happens to be a Yarimjot, also loses the opportunity to hire the most profitable workers. Eventually, due to job cuts triggered by a loss of profit, even more Yarimjots lose their job. Thank you for reading this. Feel free to start attacking my story now. I hope that you notice the anagrams.
Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

I will use the first round to state my stand. Affirmative action has several advantages and disadvantages. I support it because in my opinion the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This debate is about one particular alleged criticism of affirmative action. That is: "Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve." As long as the demand for an opportunity is more than supply, some people are going to be deprived. However, I will contest the assertion that the majorities (or superior classes) 'rightfully deserve' them. Consequently - I also consider the use of the term 'robbed' as inappropriate. One thing we are not going to debate is - whether affirmative action is justified in a particular case. More specifically we are not going to discuss particular examples. I want this restriction for a very practical reason. I hardly know anything about the prevailing conditions in USA. Similarly the pro is unlikely to know much about caste equations (I am not kidding - this is what it is called in public discourse) in India. Still this question is valid in both cases. So we start with an assumption that we are debating about a country where there is significant inequality between dominant majority and less dominant minority - which calls for affirmative action. As usual, I will wait for the pro to state his arguments first.
Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

Affirmative action - http://en.wikipedia.org... Majority - http://en.wikipedia.org... Robbed - to deprive of something due, expected, or desired (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Opportunity - a good chance for advancement or progress (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Rightfully deserve - The person would have received the opportunity, had affirmative action not been enforced. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
The Star Wars Prequels are inferior to the Original Trilogy

(1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals and closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent. *********I think that the Star Wars prequels aren't on the same level as the orginal trilogy, and are a rushed, poorly written, and speical-effects laden 418 minutes.
Should we send a task force int North Korea to neutralize the nukes and wmd"s

Good luck to you too. And if I can say that North Korea has openly threatened us with nuclear missiles, and that is a huge threat that endangers not only American citizens, but also endangers all of their enemies (which is about everyone.) True they don't have the proper technology to send a nuclear missile very far, but what happens when they do and we've all just sat around waiting for the inevitable? By sending in a covert ops group to defuse the weapons or disable them the world would be able to take a breath of fresh air knowing we've just stopped a huge practically terrorist act. And you may be saying they'll only make more. we can close off their ports because according to abc news they stopped a Cuban trade ship on the way to north korea with nuclear warheads. it would be much harder for them to get their hands on these weapons.
The State of Israel Ought to Exist!

<<MADE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT, IF YOU FIND A WAY TO ACCEPT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT. PLEASE COMMENT/MESSAGE TO DEBATE THIS>>I realize I have forfeited this topic many times, but in my defense I forfeit nearly all of my debates. Real life happens, folks. I promise to complete this debate though: it is a topic I believe strongly in, and I want to argue it. Since I could not find an ideal way to phrase the resolution I will be explaining the Spirit of the Motion below. This is the actual topic which ought to be discussed. Spirit of the Motion: In essence this debate should not talk about whether "a Israel" should exist but should talk about whether the "current" Israel as it is today ought to exist. This debate will also include whether the state of Israel is a just and legitimate state or a racist regime. I repeat this is part of the debate: is Israel is a fair and just society, or on balance, is it a racist, unjust regime? 1. The Proposition goes first, and gives their first argument in this round. The Proposition will leave the last round empty to ensure that each person have equal argumentation space. 2. References can be given in a difference docs.google file. 3. There are 5 total rounds, with 4 debate rounds, 10k chars each, 72/hr per post, and a Select Winner option with Open Voting. The voting period is 10 days. 4. No deconstruction semantics, trolling, or otherwise rudeness will be accepted, and plagarism of any kind will result in a complete loss. Well then, let the games begin.
Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School . . .

I will accept the challenge set forth by the PRO. Thank you first off for setting up this debate round. However the first thing that I will do is clarify one thing. That one thing is that I am to take the position of CON. It seemed that the PRO was trying to argue the CON when he was posted as the PRO. As per the postings in the comments it seems that the poster might have meant to be CON, but I will hold him to his statement: " I am in favor of this suggestion. I fully uphold the notion that DDR ought to be included" Again my argument is that DDR SHOULD NOT be included.
Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School . . .

FULL TOPIC: Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School and/or Middle School Physical Education classes for schools that can afford it. I am in favor of this suggestion. I fully uphold the notion that DDR ought to be included and invite anyone who wishes to argue in favor of the topic. Like my most recent debate challenge, I shall begin argumentation in the second round and shall merely let this round serve as the greeting round. PRO is more than free to follow suit and begin argumentation in the second round Furthermore, I believe the topic is quite clear in it's meaning and reserve the right to challenge any interpretation of the topic which my opponent may have that differs from my own. PS: For those who wish for further clarification on the topic, I shall more than gladly be of assistance in the comment section.
Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School . . .

My notion with saying my opponent was using a slippery slope was based not on that he said that curing obesity would improve driving. I am saying that it is something that can not be looked at because there is really no evidence showing that having a person play a video game will help them to drive better. That i not the reason for people getting into car accidents. It is the driving environment they are in. Like people in the car, playing with a cell pone, messing with a cd. And no this is not a new argument I am simple emphasizing the point. Next the PRO said that Wii sports was not a full on game. Yes it is. You can change up your activity, and by sing they both can be used is not true. With DDR you will end up spending more money to get the game and equipment. Also by his own article it said they did not use the "For home" equipment. That is the Wii equipment he is saying they should use. It is obvious that my opponent does not know the things he would need to use to get his program started. Also he has the burden to say the time in which his plan will be implemented. Also unless it is defined it is to be assumed it will occur NOW. As in the rules of inter collegiate debate. I has been on a nationally recognized team for two years now. My opponent is trying to shift t responsibilities of this debate round and that can not stand.
Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School . . .

I would first like to point out that the only thing that I agreed to from my opponents contention 1 was that obesity was a problem. However I never said an economic problem. Now on to the fallacy. It is n fact a slippery slope statement. By helping people cure obesity you also are claiming that it will help our nation will car crashes. That is an irrelevant connection and you have no proof in the similarity with the two. Again I ask for this to be dropped from he round. And you could even tie the being able to dance better statement into this as well. We are debating helping obesity, NOT driving, dancing. And then I pose this question to my opponent. If playing rhythmic games help intelligence, why then has the school system done better sense Guitar Hero has been a best selling game? http://blog.nola.com.... Also in response to me arguing that DDR does help loose weight. Ya um if you didn't already here a few schools have already used the machines. Kind of hard to refute that. On to my argument. You can not assume that a school board will purchase games from Amazon.com. Also you are changing your entire argument mid debate. First it is just DDR. Now DDR AND WII. So the next alternative I say are you going to add this onto your argument. I ask my opponent to PLEASE specify what system he is trying to use in his resolution. When asking this question I would hope that he would not say Wii an if he does I hope the people reading this debate would point out that I was the one suggesting that system and by him saying Wii would destroy the integrity of this debate. I should not be penalized because my opponent did not specify his position. With my opponent saying that it is for schools who can afford it. He did not refute the fact that the schools around our nation are going through hard economical times, so the likely hood that they could afford it slim to none. There are schools around the nation that are cutting teachers so they can afford books and supplies. As of now it is not a big interest in schools to pay hundreds of dollars for a single station to work out on. Again with my proposition for the Wii to be used. You get a free game in the system that gives the user a good workout. My opponent NEVER refuted the fact that for one DDR you can get far more Wii'. With my opponents plane you have to pay far more.
Dance Dance Revolution ought to be included in High-School . . .

I will not refute the evidence that was given stating that our nation is in trouble with obesity causing havoc in our youth, that is a proven fact for many years. Also yes there is an advantage to paying DDR. However I want to start by saying that by playing DDR you will no improve your car driving skills that is a slippery slope fallacy and you need to drop this argument from the round. One does not contribute to the other. Also we are not debating if it will improve there dancing ability. Dealing with obesity is what we are trying to fix not the fact that a lot of kids can not dance. According to CNN. com (. http://www.cbsnews.com...) it will take $8,000 for each machine. Even in my opponents own speech he said that obesity is an economical problem. Schools do not have the money to be buying $8,000 machines. Even the less pricey models will still run a few hundred dollars. You need the T. V, the game system, the game, the pad. That adds up to a lot of money that we as a nation can not afford. In an answer to the high cost of the DDR machine is to get the children into Wii sports. For the $8,000 spent on one DDR machine you could purchase 16 Wii machines along with a T. V to use the system on. I am using prices from Best Buy. com. The Wii comes with an activity game, so you would not be required to purchase a game unlike the DDR alternative. Also by purchasing Wii's you can play multi player games getting more kids involved. Also they still would be loosing calories and have more of a selection to play, so the appeal for kids to exercise would still exist.
Our Mental And Conscious States Are Not Identical To Brain States

Perhaps you'd like to re-word your beginning sentence. People engaged introspection long before they knew that Earth is not flat. This does not mean that what they were doing was better or smarter or lead to better conclusions. Understanding the brain, via science, helps the process of introspection. For instance, dehydration leads to belligerence. If a person does not know this and is engaged in introspection, and that person is dehydrated, the conclusion that the person comes to will be, most likely, angry and tainted by the brain-state. So, my point is that, in not knowing brain-states, introspection is primitive and ends up at poor conclusions. Therefore, an updating of the whole process is in order
Our Mental And Conscious States Are Not Identical To Brain States

"All That You Discuss Requires A Brain."The same thing I said in my last round applies to this. I will repeat it again (but modify it according to my opponent's gender):"My opponent didn't even address my argument. She just said that you need the brain states to do introspection and to think. However, even if that is true, that wouldn't mean that mental states/ conscious states are brain states, just that they are dependent on brain states (thus, the resolution is not harmed in light of this objection). Also, perhaps the conscious/ mental self is just using this brain as an instrument. If this is true, then even though brain effects causes certain mental/ conscious effects, that wouldn't mean that the conscious/ mental self as a couldn't exist and have thoughts independent of the brain."So, unless my opponent actually addresses what I am saying, instead of repeating the same defeated assertions; there is nowhere else for this debate to go. The resolution is established.
Our Mental And Conscious States Are Not Identical To Brain States

My opponent didn't even address my argument. He just said that you need the brain states to do introspection and to think. However, even if that is true, that wouldn't mean that mental states/ conscious states are brain states, just that they are dependent on brain states (thus, the resolution is not harmed in light of this objection). Also, perhaps the conscious/ mental self is just using this brain as an instrument. If this is true, then even though brain effects causes certain mental/ conscious effects, that wouldn't mean that the conscious/ mental self as a couldn't exist and have thoughts independent of the brain. My argument stands.
Our Mental And Conscious States Are Not Identical To Brain States

Argument P1: If a thought and/ or experience is identical neural firing, then when one one engages in introspection, they are necessarily examining neural firing. P2: When one engages in introspection, they are not necessarily examining neural firing C: A thought and/ or experience is not identical to neural firing --Defense of P1 "Introspection is examination of one's own conscious thoughts and feelings. .Introspection is closely related to human self-reflection and is contrasted with external observation. " [1] Introspection is the examination of one’s own inner thoughts, and the experience of self-reflection. You can do this right now in your chair without moving a limb. However, if thoughts and experiences are neural firings, then it follows that when I do introspection, I am examining my own neural firings and signals necessarily (this is because my thoughts and feelings are supposed to be exactly the same as my neuron firings in this scenario). Thus, P1 is necessarily true. -- Defense of P2 If P2 is false, then introspection alone is equivalent to engaging in neuroscience. This is absurd. Anyone who does introspection without knowing about the brain by looking in a skull for example, reading a textbook, or watching a brain scan cannot tell you anything about neuron firings, but they certainly can tell you their thoughts and experiences. As respected neuroscientist Sam Harris notes, we do not know anything about neural firings by introspection alone: "There is nothing about introspection that leads you to sense that your subjectivity is at all dependent or even related to voltage changes and chemical reactions going on inside your head. You can drop acid, you can meditate for a year, you can do whatever you want to perturb your nervous system, you can feel yourself to be one with the universe, and at no point in that transformation do you get a glimpse that there is a hundred trillion neurons in your head, or synapses in your head that are doing anything. " - Sam Harris [2] People were doing introspection, and gaining knowledge by examining their thoughts and experiences long before we as human beings even knew what a brain was; let alone brain activities like neural firing by examining them like we do with modern science. Thus, P2 is clearly true. The conclusion simply follows via Modus Tollens[3] Conclusion [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...; [2] Video [3] . http://www.philosophy-index.com... . http://www.youtube.com...