BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rent Control is Bad

I will ask that he refrain from posting anything in the final round so each side has a full 3 rounds of argumentation. Arguments and Rebuttals1) On price ceilings, what typically happens is that suppliers of a good (in this case, the builders of rental units) do not have any real incentive to add more units, because it doesn't benefit them to do so. There are rising costs associated with adding additional units (marginal utility) that are not justifiable due to the ceiling on rents. Basically, at a certain point, you're going to have over-worked construction workers that are making houses as fast as they can, and in order to get them to make EVEN MORE houses, you're going to have to either compensate them further, or hire more workers (i. e. rising costs). With rent control, builders can't afford either option, so they don't build more houses. In practice, this leads to some people getting affordable housing, but other people not getting ANY housing. This is the main drawback of rent control.2) On inflation, that's largely neutral and irrelevant, since costs will rise with inflation as well.3) On fairness, it is more fair to have housing for whoever needs it at whatever they can afford, than to have housing only for a lucky few, and throwing the rest out into the streets. There are various other dynamics at work as well:4) If rents are low, then owners of rental property have less incentive to properly maintain their properties. Thus what typically happens in rent-controlled areas is that much of it turns into a slum. . http://www.fairhousingcoalition.com... This is evident in the city surrounding UC Berkeley, the south side of which is a gigantic slum, even though demand for student housing is ridiculously high. Most students move several miles away from the city either because they can't find any accommodation in the city proper, or because whatever they can find is rat-infested with broken toilets. . http://archive.dailycal.org...5) Low rents translate to low property prices, leading to lower property taxes, leading to less funding for education, police, firemen, and other municipal services. Essentially it's a ceiling on economic activity, especially considering how large a portion of housing is of aggregate wealth . http://www.federalreserve.gov.... Pages 1 and 2 of the Federal Reserve's report show that real estate is by far the largest component of household net worth, and is worth fully 2/3 of ALL non-financial corporate assets COMBINED. Rent control thus puts an unnecessary ceiling on the most important aspect of household wealth. ConclusionI hope this brief summary answers CON's questions. Rent control is bad because it creates a bunch of undesirable effects in exchange for scant affordable housing, which is typically in terrible shape.
Rent Control is Bad

The point of this debate, as I have said, is to understand whether rent control is good/bad. I am ultimately undecided, but I intuitively would say it is good. My opponent felt it would be better to "discuss" this topic in the debate forum, so I have complied. I have also asked my opponent to focus mainly on conceptual arguments, or to at least explain his math in-depth, as math is not my strong suit. As of now, I have read cursory arguments against rent control, which is a consensus within the orthodox economics circle. However, none of them have convinced me sufficiently. I will now counter some of the common arguments: 1) Rent control functions as a price ceiling, which creates a deficit as supply cannot meet demand. I understand this theoretically, but I fail to see why it applies to the housing market. I fail to understand why real estate developers would not just make more houses when there is demand, despite rent control. I don't see why the sudden inclusion of rent control would affect that decision, since a profit is still to be made. 2) Critics say rent control is unfair to landlords since they can't cover costs. In my research, I have found that rent control is not static to the year it is established, but allows you to raise it to reflect inflation. For example, to simplify let us say the only costs of running an apartment building is water. Cost of water (cost to run the apartment) at time A: 100$ a month Rent at time A: 200$ a month Thus the landlord makes a 100$ profit, and is able to keep the apartment running. However, let's say at time B, inflation increased so that water now costs 150$ a month. Since rent control adjusts for inflation, this allows you to raise your rent X$ (X being the price that allows the landlord to match costs, and that raises his profit (income) enough to allow him to maintain his standard of living at time A). 3) Critics say it is more "fair." I don't fully understand this. To me, it is more fair that a poor person continue living in the house he has grown up all his life due to his personal ties - it is not fair that these people are kicked out of their home. To me, it is fair that people don't need to make 3 hour commutes to their place of work, which poor people have to do since they cannot afford high rent (ex. http://www.theatlanticcities.com...). I acknowledge "fair" is a subjective term, but I consider it tied to human rights in which people have the right to a certain standard of living in housing and cultural ties to a neighborhood. As such, rent control is "bad" in that it must either force poor people out or it must reduce living space.
Rent Control is Bad

Background. http://www.debate.org...ResolutionRent Control is BadDefinitionsRent control refers to laws or ordinances that set price controls on the renting of residential housing. It functions as a price ceiling. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Bad: Not preferable Rules3,000 character roundsFirst round acceptance only2nd/3rd rounds arguments/rebuttals4th round closing, no new arguments or sourcesNo ad-hominems. Bad conduct will be penalized. Burden of proof is shared.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

Pro asserting that I have lost this debate is absurd. Please remember his point in this debate:"my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time"Now Pro goes on to say in this final round: "if we assume one thing can be unlimited, we can assume another thing can be unlimited. " I assumed there could be the unlimited. As per my first argument, if Omnipotence means "the ability to do anything / infinite power" then doing the illogical is possible per the definition of ANYTHING. I merely pointed out afterwards the lack of logic to begin with. There is nothing wrong with assuming the unlimited is true. But to assume that, we are assuming illogical things. The guidelines of accepting things without logic is fine, but accepting them and then believing they are no logical is ridiculous. I have agreed the omnipotent being and the rock can exist. They would have to exist outside logical understanding. The only reason 'God' cannot lift the rock he created to be "too big" is because its "logically impossible". However, if both beings/objects are illogical, then performing a logical possibility is perfectly fine and obtainable as the beings do not abide by logic to begin with. This has been my argument from the begging which Pro has ignored, or misinterpreted. Pro has not fufilled Burden of Proof.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

con says omnipotence is illogical. there's no reason there can't be 'unlimited as otherwise limited by logic' though. that wouldn't require a rock so infinite that it can't be moved by an unlimited source. it would require there to be a tipping point that abides by the laws of physics. approaching it from illogic, even by con's own reasoing that God can do anything at the same time, that is not true cause he's trying to make sense of it by logic. we can say he can do either at the same time, either at different times, one at the same time, jibberish. also according to the unlimited that doesn't abide by logic, the only reason again that the rock can't exist as con argues is cause there's something illogical to begin with, namely, an unlimited force. if we assume one thing can be unlimited, we can assume another thing can be unlimited. plus if iit's all based on illogic to begin with, there's no reason we can't have a rock so infinite that it can't be moved.... cause it doesn't abide by logic so anything we say can be true, or not true. con mainly loses cause he didn't approach the debate from a matter of logic first, assuming God to abide by logic, and in terms of illogic, anything anyone says can be true or not true anyway.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

I have not misread the arguments, Pro has posted ridiculous amount in their opening, most of which is repetitive or nonsense. Here is the biggest piece of information thatt needed to be taken from Round 1 (Pro): "Can an Omnipotent God create a rock he cannot lift? it is said that If one answers yes to the question, then God is therefore not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock, but if one answers no to the question, God is no longer omnipotent because he cannot create the rock.my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time. and, that he can't do both at the same time doesn't disprove God as omnipotent."As I mentioned, my answer is yes he and do both. (At the same time) So I have negated that premise." and what happens when two opposiing infinite sources hit each other? "This is not part of the deabte, this was merely a point you brought up in your argument because it has similarites to your premise. But it is not the same situtation, So I am going to ignore it as it does not fully apply to our debate.Pro is misinterpretting my points. I never said "infinite source couldn't exist that would make a rock immovable."I said that a rock that big is simply illogical. Why is Pro proposing a question of two illogical objects/forces that must be forced toa bide by logic?And I proved how this rock had to be infinite to be immovable by an omnipotent being. If it is just "Really big" and 'not infinite' that it must have a numerical mass. Omnipotence is iniftinite power, meaning it can lift any numerical mass. Infinite mass is the only thing that could counter omnipotence.If Pro is stating that the rock is literally so large it CAN't be moved from one spot to another, this is also illogical. This means the rock is as big as space itself. However, space expands with the as the objects (galaxies, planets, stars etc) grow or expand.This means there is no logical way for the rock to be so heavy, or so large to be a part of logic.Omnipotence is already illogical.Therefore, I have already countered your premise, "my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times,".'God' can do both, at the same time.Omnipotences trumps logic, meaning that even though it doesn't make sense to us, someone/something, having the ability to do ANYTHING and EVERYHTING can defy logic.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

i dont think con read my opening argument very closely. i argued that God could create a rock he couldn't lift, so con needs to negate that. i wasn't just positing the paradox for him or others to rebut. also, as to con's reasoning. con says an infinite source couldn't exist that would make a rock immovable. but the only reason we'd have to assume that to begin with, is because we assume that an unlimited force of God exists. if there's illogic involved, it's ebcause of God at the beginning, not because we have to assume an infinite force w the rock. and what happens when two opposiing infinite sources hit each other? well, the universe explodes, i guess. we just don't entertain the idea. we entertain one infinte force or another, not both. and if both aren't infinite, then one doesn't need to eb infinite, just extrememly large. plus there's no reason it has to be infinite to be immovable, unless again it's ebcause we are assuming the unlimited of God to begin with. it just need to be 'immovable'. which could be extrmely large for our purposes.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

This simple answer is: Yes. An omnipotent being can create a rock so big/heavy that even the being cannot move it.Why?Omnipotence means being able to do ANYTHING.This includes logical impossibilities.Just because it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it can't happen. Inifinite power is unfathomable to humans, as we are restricted by logic. An omnipotent being, or even "God" is said to have created out world, created OUR logic. Now to look at the individual components...'God' (our omnipotent being) has unlimited/infinite power in this scenario. This means if God were to bench press any amount of weight, we can safely assume 'God' can lift any numerical amount of weight. Pro is propsoing there is a rock. This rock is "immovable" or "unliftable". Meaning that its mass has to be infinite in order to counter God's power.Inifinite mass is illogical. Inifnite power is illogical.Yet, Pro is proposing a question that is trying to limit to illogical objects/beings/forces by logic.To summarize simply again...Since the objects in question are illogical, they are not required to abide by logic, therefore, Yes 'God' can create a rock so big that even He cannot lift it.
Internet is always beneficial

1. Build Your Networking Muscle Practice networking by attending lots of different networking events. You will meet many interesting people and contacts, some of which will become great clients, colleagues or friends. 2. Develop Thick Skin Get comfortable hearing the word "no", over and over and over again. It will build your character and make you tenacious about your business. 3. Be Nice to Everyone You Meet I had a boss once who used to say "be nice to the people on the way up because you never know when you"ll be meeting them on the way down." The world is getting smaller all the time. Don"t burn any bridges and be genuinely nice to everyone. 4. Be Giving Give your time, your advice, and especially your referrals. It will all come back to you in positive karma and plentiful business opportunities. 5. Grow Your Relationship Database You are only 4 or 5 people away from anything you ever want or need. All you have to do is ask. 6. Communicate Maintain regular and consistent contact with the people in your database. One of my most successful communication tactics is to periodically meet with people in my network face to face. It"s much more personal, and much more fun too. When you can"t meet in person then a phone call or personal note works well too. Of course, I"m also on various social networks, but other than my "Road to Results Newsletter", I try to stay away from canned email communication. 7. Keep it Simple Look at where you are spending your time and your precious energy. What is generating you the best results? Those are the activities you want to continue doing and do more of. Get rid of the time and/or money wasting activities. 8. Build Rapport Are you a people magnet or a people repellent? What are you projecting outwardly? Make sure others see you as a positive, warm and friendly person they would like to interact with. Make sure your positive personality and outlook is attracting relationships and not pushin
Internet is always beneficial

I THINK SO THAT INTERNET IS NOT SO HELPFUL FOR US IN OUR DAILY LIFE THE REASONS ARE LISTED BELOW- Negative Impact Of Internet ARE Internet Addiction Disorder The biggest negative impact of Internet is the "Internet Addiction Disorder". Well, since the researches about this Internet disease are still going on, so it is hard to define it at this time. The person suffering from this disease behaves in the way as he/she is always on the Internet, even when there is no Internet. This Internet disease has been found mostly among the young adults. Recent surveys conducted in America estimated that around 10-15 million people are there who are suffering from Internet Addiction Disorder. The count is indeed very big and is increasing every year. Reduced Physical Activity Gone are the days when children used to play outdoor games. Now they prefer to play games online which do not involve any physical activity. Due to addiction of Internet, many people are doing less physical activities. This is one big reason why obesity is common to find nowadays. Continuous use of Internet is bad for our eyesight as well. Cyber Crimes Since anyone can use Internet, so the huge user base of this virtual world contains some naughty minds as well. Such people"s whole purpose of us
should airline pilots be armed

Argument 1: but i for one would feel much safer knowing that my pilot could protect me and air marshall can be killed and then what good is he?? if you have an air marshall plus an armed pilot it could be a great way to prevent anything from happening including sneaky thieves and criminals. argument 2: the pilot is not going to be and undercover terrorist because airlines and the united states of america isn't going to let just anybody be a pilot.
should airline pilots be armed

Horrible idea very horrible idea. Certain classes of citizens in this country do not deserve to hold a gun in their hand. Since the nine eleven bombing airline security improves so there is a less chance of suicide bombing or terrorist attacks http://www.todaysengineer.org... Bomb sniffing dogs are now new to the airline society and those dogs are able to sense bombs in others. There is a less chance of terrorist attacks now since 9/11. There could be terrorist attacks but not so many since 9/11 Argument 1: Undercover terrorist Giving a pilot a gun really makes no sense because you do not know if the pilot is a terrorist. With a gun the terrorist will be able to use the gun to harm citizens. The pilot could have a disease or mental illness and can cause havoc or terrorism to the passengers and their will be no one to stop the terrorist unless a cop was there. Pilots could have mental illnesses and cause crime and havoc or terrorist behavior to passengers. Example/ scenario: Here is a example. If you were on a plane and than later on a pilot took out his gun and reloaded his ammo you would be scared and what if he got up talking about not moving? Also lets say he had a illness. And what if he points the gun out. It would not be safe than. This is showing that Pilots can have a mental disordered disease and causes havoc. Argument 2: Thieves There are criminals everywhere and criminals steal. Criminals can distich all there metal gadgets and leave at home, but what if a criminal came on the plane acting like a normal citizen and takes a seat. Citizens who are criminals can sneakily take the gun from the pilot hands. Hijackers can come take over the plane. Some hijackers come in a group with heavy guns so what is the point 1 against many the pilot will lose and it would not make sense. Thieves like hijackers and criminals can somewhat breach past the security(if smart enough) and takes over the gun. Argument 3: Professionals US marshals: US are on most airline flights and they are more trained and armed and they work basically more better with guns than pilots http://www.studentnewsdaily.com... If we had pilots holding guns than there should be trained cops and military also more marshals on every flight just incase if a pilot was a terrorist Argument 4: losing control and concentration Pilots need to focus on getting passengers to their destination instead of worrying about a gun
Adam was scheming

As a christian, we are so familiar with the story of human fall in sin firstly. It started by snake which seduced Eve to break the rules. However, Eve couldn't stand in obedient of God, instead she chose to eat the "forbidden fruit". She also gave that to her husband, Adam, WHO WERE WITH EVE AT THAT TIME. Basically, Adam DIRECTLY heard the words of God. Logically, Adam must have prohibited Eve rather than joined to eat that. It is an awkwardness. Why didn't Adam prohibit his own wife? It proves my motion. Secondly, look carefully at Genesis 3: 9 "And the LORD God called unto [Adam], and said unto him, Where art thou?" Why Adam? Why not Eve? Eve ate the forbidden fruit and invited Adam to do that, didn't Eve? This also refer to my, actually my lecturer's perception. Thank you.
Jesus is God

I would like to start out by addressing your claim that, "No man or flesh could call there selfs the son of God without being God which is why the jews tryed to stone him in John 10: 31-33. Matthew 1: 18 and 20 both clearly say that the child is the son of the Holy ghost and God. Also, the Jews were not neccesarily trying to stone him because they thought he was claiming he was god, it was because he was claiming he was the son of God. (Saying that you're somebody's son does not mean that you are saying that you are them. I would now like to address the scripture Isaiah 9: 6. Jesus is a wonderful counselor to the people, and to God, he is a God, and he is our father spiritually. The Isaiah 9: 6 that you mentioned is not even the entire scripture. You forgot to mention, or decided to leave out, the last part which says that he is also the prince of peace. It clearly says that he is a prince, not the king, which means that there is someone above him, which is clearly his father. I will now move on to address 2nd scripture which is John 14: 9. During this scripture, The next two verses after this scripture will help to explain what he is actually talking about. They will show that he is actually just saying that all that he does, he does through the power of his father. Deuteronomy 6: 4 is not saying that Jesus, and God are the same, it is just talking about the Jesus (the lord) saying that they should worship him, and not any other material gods, like the egyptian Gods. Isaiah 44: 8 is just talking about not making graven images or other gods as shown in verse 9 and 10. In Isaiah 43: 10, he is just saying that he is the only savior as shown in verse 11. Matt: 1: 23 Jesus is a god, is the Messiah, and is also the person who is closest to being a god. (he's half god.) John 1: 1 and 14 he was the one who created the earth. It says that the lord god, which is Jesus) did it in Genesis Chapter 2. John 10: 30 Look at verse 38. It is saying that they are in each other, and that they are both gods. James 2: 19 if you look around it, you will notice that it is just talking about faith and works, and it is saying that having faith and believing in god is good, but that you need to act on it. 1 Timothy 3: 16 Jesus was a god, and was the messiah, the one who saved everyone spiritually, and who was half God. Finally, to address your paragraph about the right hand of god. The term Jesus was standing on the right hand of God could be taken literally, (most of the time when it says this it was talking about visions.) or, you could interpret as saying that he was using the power of god, not claiming it.