BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

Opponent mentioned that it would take a lifetime to figure out a belief, we disagree. Another argument that can come forward to the reason why you shouldn"t believe on insufficient evidence is that one tends to still look for answers to try and justify it [Ec]. Clifford stated "if a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future", therefore we are still searching for answers to hold our beliefs [Ri]. For example if a man never rock never rock climb before, he still search for stories in himself that was told about first time climbers, or he make up a story that justify the reason why he can do, since he have never done it before [S]. So if one needs to look for evidence to still try and hold that belief then it serves no purpose for holding it [I]. Belief leads to actions [Re], therefore one needs to hold beliefs that are morally right [Ri]. Morally right beliefs are beliefs that have sufficient or evidence that prove beyond unreasonable doubt to support it [S]. Just like officers look for evidence to solve or justify a crime [i] one should do the same. It"s like the story Clifford speaks about with the shipowner, "he still has a choice in the action"". And so cannot escape the duty of investigating on the grounds of the strength of his convictions". All actions have consequences [Ri] thus one should have evidence that society would find justifiable reasons for performing the act [S]. Because if the shipowner"s ship was to sink one will say "he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him" [Re] because there is a "conceptual link between holding a belief and responding to evidence regarding it". One can argue that we are all guilty of this by something happening in the past and believing it will happen again but that not a correct belief due to how conditions of the situation changes [S]. Just like Wood and Clifford state "we should always "proportion our belief to the evidence" just like court on how they make convictions [q]. Justice is blind until evidence sways the balance of the scale [i].
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

James counters Clifford argument by establishing a difference between live and dead hypothesis. (MP) He explains through the dollar example that just because one may want their dollar bill to turn into a hundred dollars that does"t mean that it will become a hundred dollars. (S) In the example that the opponent mentioned "if everyone believe its right to kill for wrong doing, then everyone will be dead" that does"t mean that it can be will. There are several beliefs that can"t be realized.[S] James also explains that our psychology is limited and we can"t confirm all our beliefs because that can take lifetimes and we won"t be able to have any significant beliefs if we spend all of our lives trying to figure it them out. [RE]
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

Some may say Clifford theory on Ethics shows that one shouldn"t believe anything without evidence, which is not the case. What the philosopher is trying to say is don"t hold certain beliefs without a justifiable reason. Holding strong beliefs is dangerous because it allows one to lose their individuality [Ec]. By not inquiring more evidence results in one being confirm to the belief of society (the norm) [S/Ri], which is dangerous to the person and society as well [Re]. For example if everyone believe its right to kill for wrong doing, then everyone will be dead [S]. Forming one"s own belief allows them to justification for their own beliefs and others [Ep] due to how they formulate their own evidence, which could be corroborated with others [S]. Most individuals that hold beliefs on insufficient evidence tend to been influence by their culture or parental/guardian, which is also dangerous [S]. Their belief are not voluntary thus making the person gullible [Re]. Throughout ones life we are influence on everything someone in a higher authority state to us [Ec] due to how we are not in position to inquire. For example I grew up believing in a man known as Santa or when I believe if I lie my nose will grow longer [S]. There are no support for holding these beliefs therefore one is somewhat consider to be in darkness [Ri]. According to Plato the person that escape outside of the cave finds the truth but when one stay, they fail to come to term that they have no control over the formation of their beliefs [S]. Therefore, is your loss if you don"t inquire [Ri] . To quote Richard Dawkins "Science offers us an explanation of how complexity arose out of simplicity", therefore if one still don"t believe they are living with self-deception [q]. Allen Wood stated that we "have the moral responsibility to form the right belief"[S] thus we need evidence or we deceiving ourselves, which result in us being blinded to the truth [Re].
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

Believing without sufficient evidence is vital because there is no possible way for every single instance that occurs to be proven by any evidence .[Re]Although Clifford does say that " it is wrong always, everywhere , and for everyone , to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", it is also said by James that what we believe is not just settled by pure reason.[S] James says " For many of our beliefs , the evidence plays only a small part in determining what I believe".[S] It is difficult to identify valid proof or evidence for our beliefs especially since we can not clearly identify what causes us to have those beliefs in the first place. [Ri]Also Clifford fails to state what suffices as sufficient or insufficient evidence , so on what scale are we basing the evidence on and how can we identify whether or not the evidence is enough proof for a particular situation, not being able to do so makes it easier to just believe without evidence"[Re]
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

When one believe on insufficient evidence it leads to more questions being asked than answered [Re]. The whole purpose to holding belief was for it to be justifiable [Ep]. As quoted from Clifford "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe in anything on insufficient evidence". [S] Why believe with insufficient evidence when it will leave an area open for debate [Ec]. Most times when one argue about their beliefs they are trying to persuade their audience to view the situation as they do [Em/Ep] and if one don"t state enough information they fail to sway their audience to their point of view [Re]. For example if I say someone is guilty of a wrong doing, then I have to prove that they are guilty with evidence that leaves nothing to question [S]. So leaving unanswered questions allow the audience to see the person as, lacking on information pertaining to their belief they hold [Re].
Con will break a rule

I will break the rule that the rules must be followed by both players. Communism. Rules: 1. Pro cannot say is, the, must, sides, both, that, not, pro, or, con, say, type, write, can, cannot. 2. Pro must ask a question within every question. 3. Pro cannot make any con-specific rules. 4. English is the only language to be spoken in this debate. 5. Pro must use proper grammar and spelling.
Con will break a rule

We will play a game where we get to set 5 rules per each round that both players have to follow the round the rules are posted. I go first 1) Both sides must put "Please vote pro" 2) Both sides must summarize how this debate is going 3) Both sides must break a rule 4) Both sides must put rules that don't violate previous rules 5) Both sides must type something random that is apart from the summary Summary: Basically I have set con up for faliure, so I will automatically win this debate. I'm gonna violate the rule of saying something random.
The next president should negotiate directly with the Iranian president

With thanks to my opponent for his considered response, I should like to reply as follows. 1. Whilst I agree that the US's current belligerent and bellicose attitude towards Iran is counterproductive and that America should, instead, enter into positive and constructive negotiations with Iran, I still maintain that these discussions should be held on a multi-national basis so that any agreement reached would be legally binding and have the support of the wider international community. My opponent made a very salient point, however, when he outlined the dangers of anti-American bias in the Iranian media. I have absolutely no doubt that most Iranians are anti-American as a result of media bias, but how many mainstream American newspapers and television stations are pro-Iran? None. There is a great deal of anti-Islamic sentiment within the American public and this has been fuelled by the American mass media. 2. I welcome my opponent's acknowledgement of the importance of the United Nations in discussions but would remind him that Iran was one of the original members of the UN when it was first established in 1945. There is no reason to suppose that Iran would refuse to attend talks under it's auspices, provided the major world powers, perhaps most importantly America, made it clear in advance that the talks would be positive and in the long term interests of Iran. 3. I believe my opponent and I agree that a conventional military invasion and occupation of Iran would be a politically and logistically difficult operation, which is why I suggested that long range bombers and cruise missiles would be the US Government's method of neutralising any threat Iran might pose, should the military option be deemed necessary. My opponent then reiterated the desirability of negotiations over military action, which is something that I have not disputed in this debate. 4. The same guarantees against unprovoked military action should be given to both Israel and Iran so that neither country will require nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. 5. Again, my opponent and I do not fundamentally disagree, but I would suggest that a United Nations Security Council Resolution should back up military assurances and that the International Atomic Energy Agency should monitor any nuclear facilities.
The next president should negotiate directly with the Iranian president

Thanks Brian. Here I respond to your points. 1. There is a major difference between policing the world and acting responsibly as a superpower. We cannot ignore the fact that rogue nations look to us, as well as their neighboring states, for diplomatic initiatives. By refusing to negotiate directly with Iran, we jeopardize the entire region as Iran gets closer to the nuclear threshold. Our strategy with Iran has been based in militarism: we have imposed sanctions, enforced by our military and intelligence agencies, and we have made threats. These are the acts of a presumptuous superpower, one who thinks possession of a giant hammer turns every rogue state into a nail. I think our decision to talk to the president of Iran would shock the world in its moderation and reasonability. Regarding our not having to worry about the "informed" Iranians, two points: First, even those who read the news can be misinformed if the media profits from an anti-American bias; second, it's the ill-informed that you have to watch out for, and they have a way of outnumbering the well-informed. 2. I strongly agree that reliance on the U.N. should be first, second, and third resort when dealing with rogue states. I also believe that, in the event that direct talks become necessary, as they have with Iran, the U.N. should play as large a role as possible in facilitating the talks, hosting them, and implementing whatever agreement is reached. However, you cannot force a rogue nation to use the U.N. The U.N. knows this, which is why it would likely not oppose direct talks at this point. 3. At this point in time, we do not possess the military strength to conventionally overpower Iran. It is twice the size of Iraq and has a much larger population. If we should have had 300,000 troops for invading Iraq, we would need at least a million for Iran. This would require a draft. As we both know, a draft is politically impossible absent an Iranian nuke detonating in an American city. Moreover, this would be the third Muslim nation America has invaded in less than 10 years. We would swell the ranks of terrorist groups around the globe as perception of a new crusade would be incredibly powerful. It would likely mean permanent war in the middle east, would cost us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. But here's the more important point: Your argument is precisely that of an arrogant superpower, one who would rather talk about the ease of war than the hard work and sacrifice of conversation and negotiation. The fact that we could simply blow them up is no excuse for skipping the intermediary steps. 4. I would not equate Israel with Iran. However, I am not looking for just *any* diplomatic "victory" - I am looking for a way to moderate Iran. Weakening Israel would just encourage Iranian militarism, at least in the short-term. 5. I agree that part of the negotiation should be such assurances. I believe they could be extracted from the US and Israel
The next president should negotiate directly with the Iranian president

The US is an important world power, but is not the only world power. China, India, Russia, Japan and the EU are also major international players. Furthermore, Iran's neighbours should also play a central role in any negotiations. Any American president that regards himself as the world's policeman will inevitably be viewed as arrogant and presumptuous. That said, an informed Iranian should already be aware that the United States' differences with Iran are with the regime, not the people. The US Under Secretary for Political Affairs said "We want the Iranian people to see clearly how serious we are about reconciliation and helping them to develop their full potential - but also who's responsible for Iran's isolation" (1). 2. Direct talks on trade, for example, would be appropriate. However, political negotiations should be conducted through the conduit of international organisations such as the UN. 3. I agree that unilateral sanctions would further damage America's reputation with ordinary Iranians which is why the negotiations should take place within the framework the UN. Also, it may be true that starting a war with Iran may not win many votes at home, but the US certainly has the military capability and resources to decimate Iran's military and nuclear research facilities by employing long-range bombers and cruise missiles. 4. America is already a partner with rogue states. For example, by illegally occupying Palestine, Israel is in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (2) and also refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (3). Nevertheless, the US currently gives Israel $2.4 billion per annum in military aid and is planning a 25% increase in this amount (4). A diplomatic victory could be achieved by withholding these payments until Israel complies with her obligations under international law. 5. As I said, the US should be involved in negotiations, but under the auspices of the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, an agreement that thwarts Iran's suspected development of nuclear weapons must also guarantee her national security. Israel already have the military capability and stated intention to attack Iran (5); (6); (7) and the international community must be able to demonstrate that they will act to protect Iran from any such attack. (1) . http://www.state.gov... (2) . http://daccessdds.un.org... (3) . http://disarmament.un.org... (4) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... (5) . http://www.reuters.com... (6) . http://edition.cnn.com... (7) . http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
The next president should negotiate directly with the Iranian president

Resolved: The next president should negotiate directly with the Iranian president. Here's why: 1. Our willingness to meet and negotiate with the Iranian president would send a message to the large middle class of Iran that we respect them as a nation. Refusing to negotiate with their leader is an international humiliation that is felt by average Iranian citizens. Our best chance of moderating Iran is to begin to treat them as moderates. 2. Direct talks would be a leap of faith that would encourage Iran to make a similar concession. 3. We have no better alternative. Imposing sanctions radicalizes the Iranian people against America, which in turn gives the Iranian leadership license to demonize and antagonize America. Military action is probably not feasible, both for domestic political reasons and manpower limitations. 4. We need to show the world we still know how to talk out our problems with other nations. We need a huge diplomatic victory to help get us back on track in the eyes of our allies. We need to signal to other rogue states that there is a way forward and the United States can be a partner. 5. The risk would be minimal. If direct talks break down, or if an agreement is reached but later violated by the Iranians, we will have tried and failed. But we will be given credit for trying, and no failure is likely to jeopardize American interests any more than the status quo, in which diplomatic alienation allows Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions despite global condemnation.
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Statist Communism (Con)

I don't know if Milton Hershey really did that since my opponent cites no source. My opponent is clearly wrong here, as I cited the dailybeast in the second line. Even if you disregard this source, fortune.com has the same information. Therefore, you must take this piece of evidence. P.S. All evidence will be at the bottom. My opponent also says that this system was Monopolism, however, Free Market is defined as " an economy operating by free competition". Therefore, in a free market, where the government cannot regulate the market, this "Croney Capitalism" would be everywhere, as the primary goal of companies is to make money, regardless of what the people must suffer to do it. The moment the government steps in to tell the companies what to do, it is no longer a free market. Therefore my opponent has contradicted the definition of a Free Market with the sentence "This is why we enforced the minimum wage, because the government thought that private individuals couldn't help but pay their employees a starvation wage, thus the government is much better at determining morality than individuals (even though during the 20th Century individuals killed 8.5 million and the state killed 262 million), " and has therefore affirmed a government run system over the Free Market. My opponent mentions working from home, but you need money to be able to do that. Making a company isn't much better, as you inevitably become a part of the Free Market, doing whatever it takes to turn a profit. My opponent also says that Communism wishes for the government to control everything because private individuals won't help others. While this is true for some individuals, the majority of people default to a collectivist society, where people help each other. In addition, working together makes for quicker work and the production of more. My opponent posits that the Free Market System gets workers closer to the fruits of their labor, however, this could not be further from the truth. If the work one does is not enjoyable, then why would the product of that labor be worth something. By removing currency, as a communist system wishes to do, people could be free to pursue the occupation of their choice, and increasing productivity. In addition, in a Free Market Economy, a worker might work $0.25-$7 an hour to make a Laptop, however, the worker would be unable to purchase such a device, thus alienating them from the product of their labor, and isolating them from the enjoyment obtained from such a device. {1}: http://fortune.com... {2}:http://www.thedailybeast.com... {3}:http://www.merriam-webster.com... {4}:http://www.merriam-webster.com... {5}:https://www.scientificamerican.com... {6}:https://www.cmu.edu...
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Statist Communism (Con)

I'm pleased for the chance to appeal my beliefs and wish you an enlightening and impartial debate. In this debate, I'll be referring to Communism as detailed in the Center for European Studies " Communism is a political ideology and type of government in which the state owns the major resources in a society, including property, means of production, education, agriculture and transportation." However, Marx heavily emphasized the equality of the poorer class with the Upper Class. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes how the Bourgeoisie (Upper Class) have converted every occupation into a form of paid labor, where the worker is disconnected from their work. Here lies the 1st problem with a free market system, there are no checks on what a Corporation or Private Actor can do and production suffers for it. A good example of this is the Milton Hershey Corporation. Hershey had been enslaving children in West Africa and forcing them to pick cocoa beans to make their chocolate. In a free market system, the only goal is to make as much money as possible, therefore such conduct is not only allowed, but encouraged. The workers mean nothing in a Free Market system, as they can easily be replaced should they ask for more than they've been given. Under such a system, productivity decreases as well, as the worker is disconnected from the fruits of their labor. Under a communist system, money is a non-issue, therefore people can pursue the occupation of their choice, increasing productivity in the process. In communism, all property (Apartments, Houses, Means of Production, etc.) is controlled by the Government. Because of the lack of currency, the people don't have to pay for a place to live, or food to eat, unlike our system where the homeless have to rely on handouts from passers-by to stay fed and warm. On the topic of Morality, it's rather difficult to remain moral in a system where profit is cheered, and the human cost is pushed aside like it doesn't matter and slavery is cheered. Even if you assume that slavery can't exist in a free market, the entire premise of a free market relies on the accumulation of currency, therefore it's a choice between taking whatever your employer wants you to have or starving/freezing to death from a lack of wealth. Sources: https://www.sparknotes.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com... http://fortune.com... http://europe.unc.edu... https://thinkprogress.org... http://www.endhomelessness.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...