BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
will the cavs win the nba finals

The cavs just simply cannot win m8. The western teams are way more better. Here you got ball hog lebron on your team. And Show Kyrie who both try to push the best of the abilities. Kyrie barely tries to pass but when he does he makes a good effort. For a point guard hes not quite the best I rather him a shooting guard. Kevin love just get out the game he is just an extra starter like the others. And your forgetting about substitution, the "big 3" wont always be in there forever, so the commitment your making about them those bench players better be able to back it up. Who cares if they have final experience, other teams got rookies, and coaches, and new game play. You don't just learn from the finals you learn from the games, you cant just predict they will make it to the finals and with the exact team they played last time. Each year is a different year and this year is not for the cavs. Will they make the play-offs? Definitely, win the finals? Hell no m8.
will the cavs win the nba finals

Kyrie Irving is a star player capable of bringing the game to anybody who plays him. You pair him up with LeBron and you have got an unstoppable team that will dominate. Pair them up with K. Love and the entire cav team and you get a dominent team that is an offensive juggernaut and a defensive dynamo. Also the players on the team have finals experiance. They have learned from their mistakes, worked hard, and considering that the players have worked harder than ever on training, the cavs will destroy the finals. This is my statement
will the cavs win the nba finals

The cavs will be taken down this time as well as last time. They simply cannot play with each other. Lebron will never have the chemistry with kryie and love like he did with bosh and wade. And even then it wasn't to big Lebron's a ballhog. Love is getting older. The big 3 isnt a title anymore. Most of the westeren teams are just out there kicking the esatern teams butts. Eastern has taken a huge change with 2013-15 losing most players. When these playes split up for waht they would thought to be better for them they just werent as good. I state my argument.
will the cavs win the nba finals

The teams in the east, especially the Cavs, are pretty good. The only good western teams are the Warriors,Rockets,Clippers,Spurs. The cavaliers can knock off more of them. The only good rookie is D Angelo, and even with him the lakers wot make it far. For the Cavs, you've got many good players besides the big three. J.r. Smith is a great player capable of many things. When Kyrie wants a rest, you can count on smith. The cavs have got lots of people who know what to do on the court, and when the Cavs want to play, they play.
animal testing is a good thing

I am not going to post links to any site where they can find this information because what I say are facts. It was supposed to be 92% but was a error. If you want to see the facts search it up. I am going to extend my statement because it feels like I am arguing with no one because no one is arguing back. You cannot just keep looking at my statement and finding flaws. It does not make you a debater that would make you an English teacher. Instead you could find facts to counter mine instead of saying "animal testing is helpful." Any person could day this, you need facts and information to back up your statements or else you just look like a fool. I hope you carry on this information in your future debates. Thanks for the debate!
animal testing is a good thing

"Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all you need to cite this. if this were true, maybe you'd begin to have a point. i'd contend most of the time, animal testing is helpful, much better odds than failing ninety five percent of the time.
animal testing is a good thing

Animal testing- Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). Pro can't neither spell nor counter my argument and attempted to point out feeble flaws. The question is rather generalized as well, it depends on your definition of animal testing. The extent where animal testing is a bad thing needs to be drawn somewhere. The line should be drawn where it brings harm to the animal itself. As stated before, There will always be the first human who has to take this test no matter what tests are done. You could do a test a million times over and still there will be the first human. Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all. Some animal tests that were pronounced good actually led to deaths of the first human tested. Sure you can say "we learn from this" maybe we shouldn't do it to begin with. It would save 16 billion dollars that could be put to a more practical use, like education and health care. How about its time for an argument? Or is it because you have no argument? I'll see you in round 3! Thank you for debating this with me!
animal testing is a good thing

con criticizes testing when it's done only for curiosity. we should be arguing about doing it when it's just then, not saying ban it all. con says it's a waste of time cause not all tests work on both mice and humans. so, that only means the tests dont always work. it dosn't mean they don't do some good, and give us guidance. so we should continue for teh benefit that it does give us. con gave a bunch of practical point, less about ideology or core values. but, his practical points turned out to be flawed reasons to stop animal testing.
animal testing is a good thing

While it is true that animals are under the dominion of man, animal testing is done half the time because of curiosity and for no reason. Also, no matter how many animal tests are done there is always going to be the first person that has to take this test. Animals are in no way shape for form similar to a person so you cannot compare which will happen to one or the other. Take the chemical "Penicillin" for an example, is fine for rabbits but kills guinea pigs. Also, "Morphine" which is a depressant for humans stimulates goats, cats and horses. The FDA did a research that 92% of the chemicals done through animal testing failed in human testing. The point is, animal testing is useless as a human still has to be the first one to try it and we are just wasting millions of dollars on this.
Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

Altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.In order for an action to be truly altruistic the action must be committed with the intention to help someone else without considering the benefits for one self. If an action is committed that helped someone else but self interest is involved than that action is not altruistic. Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism."Psychological egoism is a thesis about motivation, usually with a focus on the motivation of human (intentional) action. It is exemplified in the kinds of descriptions we sometimes give of people’s actions in terms of hidden, ulterior motives. A famous story involving Abraham Lincoln usefully illustrates this (see Rachels 2003, p. 69). Lincoln was allegedly arguing that we are all ultimately self-interested when he suddenly stopped to save a group of piglets from drowning. His interlocutor seized the moment, attempting to point out that Lincoln is a living counter-example to his own theory; Lincoln seemed to be concerned with something other than what he took to be his own well-being. But Lincoln reportedly replied: “I should have had no peace of mind all day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see?”" -http://www.iep.utm.edu...In at least one ordinary use of the term, for someone to act altruistically depends on her being motivated solely by a concern for the welfare of another, without any ulterior motive to simply benefit herself. ordinarily we seem to only apply the term “altruism” to fairly atypical actions, such as those of great self-sacrifice or heroism. But the debate about psychological egoism concerns the motivations that underlie all of our actions.
Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

To start round 2 I would like to talk about self interest and how it goes along with psychological egoism.Self interest: a concern for one's own advantage and well-being In psychological egoism we tend to focus on primarily motivation. It is hard to really figure out what someone's motivation or intention is but in psychological egoism it does not matter what the result is, it only matters what the intent was. That means that people not in the right of mind can not benefit themselves at all while helping other people and still be motivated by self interest. Such as a case with someone with schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia can hear voices that can tell them to do things. Acting on these voices no matter what the result is, is believed to be an act of self interest as it pleases the voices which is oneself. So if the voices tell the person to kill herself and she acts on these voices she is acting in self interest even though the result is non beneficial.A form of psychological egoism called psychological hedonism which is the view that all human action ultimately has the motivation to either experience pain or avoid pleasure. psychological hedonism also claims that altruistic behavior is impossible and all action is motivated by a self interest. It claims that people can also endure pain in order to achieve more pleasure in the future. And again, just because an action helps someone doesn't mean it is not motivated by self interest. I don't know anyone that would jump into a freezing lake to save a random person while basically killing themselves, but if it were a family member or someone they knew I could make the argument that they couldn't deal with the pain of living if they hadn't tried to save them and therefore the action motivated by self interest. If someone is unhappy with life and does not want to continue living anymore then they are inducing pain in order to minimize the pain that they feel completely in life. ultimately with suicide they are taking a risk to minimize pain. Now if the case of someone helping someone else out in a non life threatening way where the benefits are seemingly non existent a psychological egoist could make the argument that the person helping this person out could be trying to gain a sense of pride or attempting to increase their reputation. An example could be helping someone with their homework. The person has nothing to gain by helping someone complete their homework except a self sense of pride and not just that but the person he helped will now like and respect him more.
Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

I will start from your definition of psychological egoism: "Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest". In my opinion, a person that commits suicide is not motivated by self-interest. People that choose such an unfortunate path, at least in great majority, are probably in desperate situations. In their minds, they probably have a reason to not continue living, but you can't say that they have an interest in dying. You can call it an action of "self-disinterest". Therefore, people can do actions that are not motivated by self-interest. Ok, suicide can't be called altruistic, but I believe that altruistic behavior is possible and it's manifestation is best visible when people choose to die for others. In your story Abraham Lincoln did the action for his peace of mind, but if you choose to die for someone you can't say you are doing it in order to have peace of mind - you are going to be dead. Let's say a person falls through the ice of a frozen lake. Another person decides to jump and help. The other person is not a good swimmer and he is just an ordinary person with no special training. It is most probable that he would die in this attempt (hart attack in the cold water, drowning when the muscled become paralyzed etc.). So, the other person knowing that he is most probably going to drown also, should not have any conscience problems to not jump...rather he could just start screaming for help and hope that a better trained person could help. Still, he jumps. He doesn't know the other person, as far as he is concerned it might just be that the other person is a criminal of some sort. I don't see any self-interest in his actions and I think that his belief is solely that people should help each other and I see just the willing to self sacrifice for the benefit of another human being.
All Human Actions are Taken Through Self-Interest

I submit that all human actions are taken through self-interest. At the heart of every reason for doing something, there exists self-interest. Perhaps you first think of actions that you take that you really don't want to. For instance, running. I am a runner, and most runners I talk to don't love the run itself. Most of us don't actually want to run for the run itself. But that does not mean we don't want to run. When we make the decision to go out for a run despite our loathing for the exhaustion to come, it is because of the sense of accomplishment that comes after. In this example we can see that we do indeed go out for a run through self-interest; we want to have that good after run feeling. This example can apply to anything that is a painful investment. It may not seem like a selfish move to do something tiring to oneself, except for the fact that one does the tiring or unpleasant things to get the pay-off. Next I'd like to talk about actions that seem to come about through a need to conform. For instance, school. While school can also be considered a pay-off type action, I believe most people aren't motivated to view something like school as an investment, and even if they view it that way, they don't treat it that way. You don't go to school because you want to, you go to school because you want to avoid punishment and the ostracizing feeling that comes from non-conformity in a society that stresses conformity. So in the end, the action of going to school is done through a sense of self-interest--self interest in avoiding negative consequences. This can apply to any scenario where one wouldn't do something if not for some kind of punishment. The want to avoid punishment of oneself is an emotion fueled by self-interest. Some people may claim that philanthropists and people who maintain a humble attitude are not acting in self-interest, but rather they are acting in a selfless manner. On the outside, this may or may not appear so, but as with all things, the core of the reasoning behind their actions is the need to feel good, or at least avoid feeling bad--actions purely in self-interest. If you donate to charities it is because you have been lead to believe that this is a good thing, and therefore you feel good about yourself doing this. Every time you refrain from throwing down a smashing comeback on somebody, it's because you'd feel bad about throwing that thing down, and so even though you aren't happy about not getting that rush from making someone look silly and yourself look better, you get that feeling inside that you are a good person. This satisfies yourself, and therefore your self-interest is seen again. People who refrain from bragging or acknowledging lofty praise do so because to brag or acknowledge would make them feel too arrogant for comfort. They refrain to feel good about themselves, and therefore act in self-interest. In short, whether it be to avoid feeling bad, to feel good, or a bit of both, we humans always act in the interest of ourselves.
All Human Actions are Taken Through Self-Interest

I believe that every action a human being has ever taken has been motivated by self-interest. My opponent should argue that at least some human actions occur without self-interest (or just selfishness if you'd prefer) as the motivator. Any arguments that get all nitpicky involving some kind of out there scenarios with mind control or whatever should not be counted when determining the better arguments. My opponent may talk about coercion, like a gun to the head type scenario, but any scenario where the person in question loses a sense of consciousness or awareness of self should not be considered legitimate.
Voting Reform

Sorry BSH1, I just don't feel like debating this. I think the polls section and opinions section should be able to participate in elections, but the forum posts shouldn't be required. I know for a fact more people are involved in the forums now as a result of the last election. I've also made at least 6 new friends who talk to me regularly through PM now, some of them about deeply personal stuff. Once again sorry about wasting your time. I shouldn't have accepted if it's not the debate I wanted. I can put together good arguments but I just lack the focus required for it at the moment. I'm actually going to stop doing so many debates and just focus on ones I give a crap about engaging in. You'll likely see me have a few in the voting period with this same message from me here shortly.
Voting Reform

Thanks to Wylted. I appreciate that he posted rather than simply waited for time to expire, and so I thank him for that. I will just briefly discuss his R3 comments at this time.Firstly, it is important to note that, while he can defend his own case in R4, he cannot rebut my case at all in R4, since that would not give me any chance to defend myself and my arguments, and it would breach the agreed upon structure for this debate. So, besides my argument about the polls, all of my case is dropped and can be extended.Secondly, Con asserts that "DDO is like 2 sites rolled into one. It's clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site...Allowing polls/opinions to vote in the presidential debate would be lilowing [sic] any random site to do it." I have several comments to make about this:(a) Con's own logic defeats him. Con's whole argument is that campaigns are a way of getting people involved in the whole community. Using that logic, we should be reaching out to people in the polls section in order to get them to vote and to help integrate them with the rest of the site.(b) I am not allowing any random person to vote. Notice, that while polls are part of the eligibility requirements, every voter needs to have posted in the forums and/or done debaters before they can vote. So, I am not suggesting that users who hide out solely in the polls section be made eligible, but rather that users who spend a lot of time there, but who are also active in other areas of the site also be allowed to vote. Consider also that very few users you frequent the polls would be enfranchised under my system--only 70 poll users have 50+ polls according to the leaderboard, so it is still a relatively high threshold for these poll users to meet. So again, it isn't like I am opening voting up to everyone who frequents the polls section. What I am doing is enfranchising (or at least making it easier to enfranchise) good users, who spend a lot of time in the polls, but who also have engaged in some basic interactions in other portions of the site. Con writes, "There is some crossover but it's extremely minimal." My goal is to capture that crossed-over population and work to allow them to vote, rather than excluding many of them (like PetersSmith) who ought to have been able to vote.(c) Con's arguments turn back on him. Con says: "[the polls section has] clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site." Why is that true of the polls section, and not, for example, of the debate section? Clearly, there are some members who just debate who really don't care about the welfare of the site as a whole, so why is Con so concerned about making sure they remain enfranchised but then says we shouldn't enfranchise those people in the polls section? Really, that just seems like a barefaced contradiction.With that, I am going to remind voters that Con has dropped pretty much my entire case. I would ask that they please extend it, and that they would please VOTE PRO. Thank you!
Voting Reform

Real life stuff going on so I will end up having to defend on the strength of my counter rebuttals. One thing I want to comment on is the difference between the polls/opinions section and the forum/debate section of the site, DDO is like 2 sites rolled into one. It's clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site. There is some crossover but it's extremely minimal. Allowing polls/opinions to vote in the presidential debate would be lilowing any random site to do it.
Voting Reform

I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.
Voting Reform

PrefaceThis is a debate over who should be eligible to vote in DDO Presidential elections. This debate has become necessary due to some controversies that came about after and during the recent election season. A minimum ELO of 2,500 is needed to vote on this debate. Response times are 24 hours. Each side has 8,000 characters.My ProposalA voter should be eligible if they meet one of the following bullets:- 1,000 posts- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 50 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts- 200 posts AND 50 polls that haven't been deleted by modsAdditionally, the following rules should be enforced:- No contacting voters after they've voted in order to attempt to have them alter their vote- If a voter asks explicitly not to be contacted further, all communication with them needs to ceaseWylted's Proposal Wylted will advocate that the status quo should be maintained. A voter is eligibile if they meet one of the following criteria- 500 posts- 3 debates without any forfeitsStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Defending Our Plans/ProposalsR3. Rebuttals the Other PlanR4. Defending Our Plans and CrystallizationRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. We will split the BOP--Pro must advocate for his plan, Con must advocate for his plan7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThanks......again to Wylted for this debate. I hope he accepts!