BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

I see your understanding is not scientific as you admit, your observations are intelligent but how can one be right without the correct information? Aristotle was clever, but he didn't know about evolution, astronomy or modern morality. I will re-state my points in light of our discussion to end this debate. ADHD, and sub-categories, are only seemingly 'caused' by family background. This, in light of knowledge about genetics, suggests that these children are learning their behaviour rather than it being predetermined at birth. This is not an epidemic or some new evolution, its a response to ever changing society that is not exactly 'healthy' for human psychology (despite the relative abundance). Remember that 1 in 4 people suffer from depression at some point in their lives and suicide is far more common in industrial societies than community-based societies. Big cities isolate more than communise, the opposite is true to logic. The immensely stimulating world of today, that kids are experiencing, is stifled in school and children are no longer engaged with education. This lack of engagement, coupled with many other factors in society that I have not the room to get into, make us psychologically sick. This shows in many ways, but one way is through total lack of engagement in structured education and an inability to relax and by content. The culture of capitalism is fast paced, big profit, live life to full. Other cultures disregard such behaviour, preferring meditation, prayer and communion. ADHD is not a problem. Its a symptom of a problem. People with ADHD are often 'better' than others, for they do things their own way and have passion. Have you noticed people with ADHD always have passions? your friend (creative writer, theologian) Most regular people are passionless and dull. To call ADHD a problem is to marginalise the portion of the society who are keen, independent, think for themselves and outside the box thusly, and passionate. All things that make ridged, structured, boring education that 'fits all and none' unbearable. I love people with ADHD, this is not a dig at them. Thank you for the argument I apologize for the lack of content I have been very busy. All the best.
"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

While it is true, and I totally agree with you, that genes cannot be blamed for behavior. They do, however, increase the chance that the children will develop whatever disorder, bodily malfunction the parent had. Diabetes, Down Syndrome, and Cystic Fibrosis. All of those things can be developed without the genetic heritage, but if there is family history, the chances are higher. On the note of ADHD parents generating that attitude. What of the children that DON'T develop the traits that someone with ADHD would develop? What about situations where one is ADHD and his/her sibling isn't? I know from a personal experience that there are situations like these. My best friend has ADD (this makes him an incredible theologian and creative writer btw) But his brother does not. Same parents, same environment. I grew up around him and his mother was always at constant battle; trying to get him to focus and whatnot. Also, to my knowledge, neither of the parents had ADHD either. Another shining example is my girlfriend (gotta boast about that every once and a while ;P) both her and her brother are diagnosed with ADHD, and it shows. She was on Ritalin forever, but made a conscious decision to get off of it. She manages, but can still struggle occasionally in school due to lack of focus. She is super fun to be around though because she doesn't stand still, and the same goes for her brother. Again, the parents are in constant OPPOSITION to their behavior, they did not influence it. In fact, there are a great many books written for parents so that they can understand how to relate to their child who is diagnosed with ADHD. Just google "How to deal with ADHD child" and observe. A side note, ADD and HD are two subsets of ADHD. They stand for attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity Disorder respectively. I am not a scientist, but from my research thus far, they still have not discovered the "cause" of ADHD. They can, however, identify it using methods other than observing the child, such as brain scans. Thanks.
"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

The argument is ADHD isn't real, but a social construct to explain energetic children. This does not account for the fact that those diagnosed with ADHD usually have a relative who was also diagnosed. It is also statistically accurate to say that families who don't have a history of ADHD have a lower chance of having offspring with it. This means that not only is it real, but it is also genetic. My second point is the chemical differences in the ADHD brain VS the non-ADHD brain. It has been proven that there are chemical differences, and I will provide a link as proof. http://www.researchgate.net... Thank you
All Defendants Should Be Guaranteed a Reasonable Bail

I will take this final opportunity to toe up any loose ends and present a closing summary. 1) Presumption of Innocence My opponent states "this does not mean that I accept every decision the Supreme Court decides…" This means that he cannot appeal to the supreme court as a legitimate authority figure. As he has presented no arguments for the PoI except for a supreme court ruling, his only argument is a special pleading fallacy and so it does not stand. As such, no PoI has been legitimately established through any solid reasoning. 2) 8th Amendment This has failed on three different levels. Still my opponent thinks that "no bail" is the same as "infinite bail," but has not been able to show this. He has shown that no bail is "more harsh," however, has not shown anything to suggest "harshness" = "excessive. " In other words, no bail may be more "harsh" than $500 trillion, but it is not more "excessive. " The final way in which this fails is that my opponent never showed how something being unconstitutional was "unreasonable. " 3) Primary focus on cash My opponent completely dodges this point. Still, in his point he says, "I only accept time as a condition for release as it relates to a trial date. " We can still apply his own logic, that if they are required to wait a set amount of time (as it relates to a trial date or not), then paying $500 trillion is not sufficient to meet those requirements, as the bail is set in a different currency and there is no conversion factor. By my opponent's own logic, he believes that any holding time is "excessive" because it cannot be met by $500 trillion dollars. This means one of two things. My opponent believes that "excessive" bail is not unreasonable, or his logic is illogical. Either way, this goes to Con. 4) Strict conditions My opponent says that the 8th amendment only protects against non excessive conditions for bail. While his statement is true, it does not address the points made that section. Detaining someone at their home is still an infringement upon their liberties, just not against the 8th amendment. In particular, it goes against the 6th and 9th amendments. Pro cannot argue that the 8th amendment should be respected, but the rest should be disregarded. In conclusion, By saying that the supreme court is not a legitimate authority (a needed claim to make in order to have a debate on this subject), my opponent cannot claim the Presumption of Innocence. Because that cannot be claimed, it is safe to presume guilt in obvious cases (as listed in R1), and in which case, my opponent has not stated why "no bail" is unreasonable. He has tried to argue that it is unconstitutional, but at no point argued that it is "unreasonable. " Thank you,
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

You specifically argued that the troopers themselves were better than the droids, not with all of the things that come with them. And the storm troopers wouldn't have Jedi, they'd have the Sith. But that is irrelevant because the troopers cannot include the Sith; that would fall under the category of the empire. Therefore the droids are better than the troopers because they outnumber them, are trained and produced more efficiently and quickly, have the same or similar weaponry, don't require food, are easy to transport, and follow orders without a question. The argument that the storm troopers would have the lightsabers or any of the heavy spaceships is irrelevant.
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

You have a keen mind chap. But of course we all know if there's storm troopers there's Jedi. Plus storm troopers have various weapons including 1Ship-mounted 2Heavy ranged 3Personal ranged 4Melee 5Light sabers Also there are many many more various weapons. Plus storm troopers could be cloned in seconds rather than minutes like the empire did!
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

Yeah, any time! Glad you're enjoying the debate. The final and biggest advantage the droids have, though, is that they can be made by the billions. They can be made in a matter of minutes on the droid factory planet and, as long as you have supplies, can be made steadily and indefinitely. This makes them a hugely lethal force. One good comparison for this would be the Soviet Union in WWII. While soldier for soldier they were far inferior to the Germans, they won because of sheer numbers. Even if each storm-trooper were 100x more effective than each droid (which they definitely aren't), they would still lose because of the sheer number of B1 droids coming at them.
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

Sorry for the late post I had forgot about this.But I totally argue with you although it bad strategies from the control panel but the roger robots otherwise know as the B1 Battle Droid was built in a very bad way. To my opinion! They have barely any armor and are very slow minded and slow moving where as A stormtrooper could run and shoot it as fast as you could blink your eye! To conclusion there might have been really bad strategies from the control panel but there at least thousands of B1 Battle Droids on the battlefield where as there were probably fewer stormtroopers on the battle field! Again I apologize for not responding to this argument I had totally forgot about it and thank you for participating and taking part of my debate I really happy that someone actually takes part and I guess enjoys my debates unlike some people not naming any names!
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

The Roger robots were the only military unit employed by the 'bad guys' shown in the Star Wars series that were even remotely effective. In the battle against the Gungan on Naboo, they nearly defeat the Gungan army and actually have them retreating. The only reason they lose is because of poor planning on the part of the control ship. As soldiers, they are more effective: they require no food, they can be shipped by the millions easily, and they follow orders without a question. The storm troopers, on the other hand, lose terribly to glorified teddy-bears.
Why the storm troopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire in a battle!

I'm here to say that the stormtroopers are better than the Roger robots used by the empire because the stormtroopers are faster, smarter and can use many different various weapons! The Roger robots are much slower and are programmed to just to fire at will at their enemies. While the stormtroopers used by the Republic are trained and use strategies and skill to fight and defeat their enemies!
Same sex marriage should be allowed

If in your mind you have won the debate- whatever! You have already showed just how STUPID you are when you made the statement 'Prove there is a God" You can not see air- but you know that it is there! I CANNOT AND WILL NOT have a moral discussion with someone who does not even believe in God! It is obvious that without God you are lacking MORALS & VALUES! Not to mention you have ignorantly twisted my statements. I am AGAINST same sex marriage!! But I never said it should not be allowed! Only god can judge them! OH that's right YOU DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD. As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. I don't like talking to immoral ignorant people who have NO values!
Same sex marriage should be allowed

Again no arguements have been made to back up that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. All of my points still stand. I feel I need to clarify some basics with Con;The title is "Same sex marriage should be allowed". I have taken the Pro/For side to this debate, meaning I agree that it should be allowed. By taking on the Con debate, you disagree with the statement "Same sex marriage should be allowed". Therefore, purely by taking on the debate, you have stated that at least in terms of this debate, your position is that same-sex marriage should not be alloud. If this is not the case, you have missed the entire point of the debate. Either way, in both the last 2 rounds you have agreed with the Pro side.
Same sex marriage should be allowed

I thank Con for the response, however Con has failed to uphold any side of their debate, as I will show. Con agrees with ProCon states "I need to be clear that just because I said that I am not for same sex marriage does NOT mean that me, or anyone else should be able to tell them they cannot get married. " and that " I only said how I felt! Not that it should be illegal! ". This is further backed up with "DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. "Since Con is debating that same-sex marriage should not be allowed, Con has abandoned her arguement and is actually agreeing with Pro. In conclusionCon has not made one clear point as to why same-sex marriage should be illegal. Con has not provided any response to any of the arguments I have made. Con has failed in the burdon of proof regarding the appeal to religion made in Con's round 1. Con agrees with Pro's side. This is basically as good as a forfeit.
Same sex marriage should be allowed

I need to be clear that just because I said that I am not for same sex marriage does NOT mean that me, or anyone else should be able to tell them they cannot get married. My previous statement is only an opinion. As I said before they still deserve to be happy just like everyone else. I only said how I felt! Not that it should be illegal! I do not think that the government should have the right to decide who marries who! Do I agree with same sex marriage? No. DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. It is not wrong to have an opinion. It is wrong to judge!
Same sex marriage should be allowed

I should start first by saying that I am NOT against homosexuals. That does not mean that it does not DISCUST me to watch two men showing affection in public. If they want to suck face or play in poop- then they should do it in the privacy of they're own home. I feel the same way about straight people! There is a time and place for everything, and out in public is NOT it! However, call me old fashioned- but marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. And NO! IT is NOT the same thing as racial profiling! I posted a debate on whether child molesters should be put to death, the man that debated this with me actually had the nerve to try to compare statutory rape to a child molester. Bringing race into this or other ethnic groups is twisting the topic just as the other ignorant guy. Same sex marriage is an insult to the sanctity of marriage! If homosexuals want to date I say have at it; they deserve to be happy also. GOD made EVE for Adam, not STEVE! So yes, I find Homosexual marriage a straight insult to GOD.
The United States should design a universal health care system.

I'll jump to it. 1. I realize that they still can get health care, but the problem is that it is more expensive to them, should they need it. Health care is generally considered to be a basic right, and people should have it. 2. This point was on privacy, not that the burden would be spread to everyone. I simply do not get how privacy is invaded by Universal Health Care. 3. You argued that taxes would be higher, but there is a trade-off. The government as a whole would save some 286 billion dollars annually from a Universal Health Care system from saved paperwork alone. This in turn translates to less required money from the people. 4. <<>> Well I believe that they get into the profession to care for people, and the benefits are just an after-thought and a positive. Barring some evidence into the matter, we are at an impasse. 5. Well, I understand that IF less research is done, there will be less cures. However, I fail to understand how Universal Health Care would cause less research. If anything, it would cause more (See link from round 1 argument). 6. << >> Actually, the report measured several things: Overall Level of Health, Distribution of Health in the Populations, Responsiveness, and Distribution of Financing. The report actually does report on whether the health care is good, thus negating your response. 7. (Democracy) You basically argue that these are biased polls. I'll admit, the CBS poll may be biased. However the Hill poll is a poll of Republicans, not the liberal left. The Third link I provided actually is a poll from the Washington Times, and therefore, if anything, would be biased in your favor. Looks to me like America wants Universal Health Care. 8. (DMV Example) Again, one example that could be isolated doesn't guarentee anything. 9. (Flexibility) I'm sure that the people who want these things (the superfluous things) could pay for the surgeries on they're own. Any extra paper-work wouldn't offset the billions of dollars we would save in a switch. My New Point: Policy Time! So basically, you argue that there is a problem with our health care system, yet the solution is not Universal Health Care. So you concede that a policy option is needed, and it isn't our current system doesn't suffice. So far the only other policy being presented to voters IS Universal Health Care. Therefore, unless you present an alternative option, voter's really have no choice but to vote for the only option presented today (Universal Health Care).
The United States should design a universal health care system.

Note: I'm a bit pressed for time, but this is the only chance I'll get for awhile. My arguments may seem a bit rushed, and I apologize if I am unclear. Your Points: 1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated 2. Destroys Privacy 3. Make everyone's problems our own 4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care 5. Companies cut down research on drugs 6. Examples: - Uncle - Canada - Britain My Responses: 1. I'm going to disregard this claim. I'm sure it is correct, and my argument lies more in the generalized amount of people, not the specific amount. First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (. http://www.cbpp.org...) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good. 2. There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens. 3. If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it. . http://www.citizen.org... 4. Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes. .. you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts. 5. I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds: . http://www.washingtonmonthly.com... To sum it up: It argues that a universal system would give incentives for investment in health-care (i. e. drugs). 6. Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care. Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't. Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: . http://www.photius.com... My Points: 1. Democracy In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care: . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.cbsnews.com... . http://thehill.com... Thanks for your time, have fun.
Assisted Suicide

Open debate, anyone can join (I like to be challenged) Resolved: Assisted Suicide should be legalized Definition: Assisted Suicide- the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. legalized- be allowed Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. First round is acceptance/and or questions regarding resolution (No arguments presented) 6. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions
Assisted Suicide

I think that there are better solutions than assisted suicide even for incurable terminal illness also like hospice that is designed to give supportive to people in the final phase of a terminal illness and focus on comfort and quality of life, rather than cure The goal is to enable patients to be comfortable and free of pain, so that they live each day as fully as possible. Aggressive methods of pain control may be used. Hospice programs generally are home-based also I m not against legalization of assisted suicide but I m against picturing assisted suicide as a romantic beautiful death but still we have to find a balance I think that everyone has the right to make such decision it is a personal choice may be it s an option to consider in the future but not now when human accept each other choices and personal decision and when everyone has the financial capability to take all kinds of medical treatment amazing debate!best wishes to pro and for his/her future it was a pleasure to debate you on my first debate