BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dictatorship is better than Democracy and/or "Free Will" government (Democratic, Republic)

Let us begin with the debate. As Pro, I will argue that Dictatorship is better than Democracy. The first question is: "Why is dictatorship so bad?" To answer it, Dictatorship, by its nature, is not bad, rather, the real problem is the leader who abused the power. There are positive effects of Dictatorship, which even makes it better than Democracy. 1) Eliminate political abuse A leader is not sometimes the problem, rather, politicians around him/her. Due to sufficient power brought by Democracy, there were able to twist people and lawyers to hide their iniquities, which sometimes is blamed to the leader. Dictatorship will eliminate those. When a leader decide, let it be. As long as the leader is judge and rightful in his/her judgement, then, this will be effective. Corrupt leaders will and cannot have the power to twist lawyers and people for their iniquities. Dictatorship is indeed "brutal", but, when used for righteousness' sake, all people will benefit from this. Abusive politicians, on the other hand, should think twice before making iniquities. 2) Set rules properly. When the leader has the ultimate power to decide, when other politicians cannot interfere and meddle with the leader, and when the leader is on his/her "right mind" - righteous and just, this point is effective, too. A lot of politicians from lower class in Democracy will love to interfere in setting rules for their own sake. Well, I'm not judging, but as far what the media as brought to us, there are some cases. Dictatorship, however, when the leader knows what is best for his/her country, no matter how his/her politicians would attempt to twist him/her, there is no way, as said, "The king's rule shall not be broken" "Your(leader) wish is my command" 3) Dictatorship will not break Freedom, it just gives people their limitations Having Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want. This point is applicable to all people, from lower class to high luxurious people. We, people, should know our limits in our country. Dictatorship is here TO CONTROL abuses, not to suppress freedom. In fact, the leader who has a government type of Dictatorship can even allow media and freedom of speech. Ironic? No. Dictatorship simply means "What the ruler decides, then, let it be" If the leader is just and cares for freedom, despite of having Dictatorship, he/she will not suppress our freedom. 4) Total Control From point 1 to point 2, we talked about politicians' abuse of power. If the leader is good, he/she will not permit this. What's good with Dictatorship is that, with just the leader's word, these abusive politicians can do nothing but to obey. No twisting and all those stuffs. Point 3 would deal with Freedom. Its like, "Do whatever you want, but there is a limit. In this limit, you can do whatever you want, BUT DO NOT GO OUTSIDE THAT LIMIT, or else..." To conclude, Dictatorship is better as it holds more power. If the leader is simply just and is responsible for his/her responsibilities, then, Dictatorship is more effective.
Dictatorship is better than Democracy and/or "Free Will" government (Democratic, Republic)

Definition of the Debate: 1) To argue if Dictatorship is better than Democracy or vice versa 2) This is a LOGICAL based debate, not really more on History. Arguments should show that either Dictatorship or Democracy is better IN THE DEBATER's POINT OF VIEW, not merely or much better, NOT ON HISTORICAL FACTS. - Note: I put it on the category of "Philosophy" not on "Politics" or "Education" as I said, this was from our own point of view. Purpose of the Debate: As Pro, I will show that Dictatorship is better in terms of logical examinations and my point of view. Con should give me proofs that Democracy would be better over Dictatorship. Rules for Debate: Round 1 - Acceptance only. Round 2 - Argument Presentation (No rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4 - Rebuttals against Arguments from Round 3 Round 5 - Conclusion No trolls and semantics. Abiding to the rules is strictly implemented. God bless us all :)
Brain surgeons get paid too much

You claim that the "system" makes neurosurgeons above the law, yet you have not provided a case that proves your baseless assertion. If one just googles neurosurgeon lawsuits, he/she can easily find results. Take for example this case below where a person sues a neurosurgeon for operating in the wrong area of the brain. http://www.stltoday.com... "Medicine has never been supported by science" I said it once and I'll say it again: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. While your link proves that diets can affect the brain, you have not proven that bad diets lead to brain cancer and inflammation. Vote Con!!!!!
Brain surgeons get paid too much

Quote - If the field of brain surgery is all but a game of bluff, wouldn't there be countless reports of screw ups. Why would people spend all those years in medical school learning a craft which according to you is not supported by science and potentially kill a person and drown in lawsuits and potentially criminal charges? Reply - Doctors bury their mistakes. Dead people don't talk. Doctors are protected by the system. If you try to fight against the system, the system will make every step that you make as difficult as they possibly can. Thus, most people wouldn't even bother to take on the system, because they know that the system is corrupt and is protected by an impenetrable wall of bureaucracy. Medicine has never been supported by science. Pharmaceutical companies may supply their equipment, but that doesn't mean that the equipment will produce a better outcome than what nature can provide. Diet can influence the performance and condition of the brain. http://thepaleodiet.com...
Brain surgeons get paid too much

Your plumber analogy is absurd. To more accurate analogy is a plumber who has to fix pipes while the water is running because patients are alive. He/she can't make any spills while doing the repairs analogous to potential blood loss in the brain. On top of that, there can be serious reprecusions if the plumber so much as even make a sratch in the wrong place much like how brain surgeons deal with the brain. Not to mention that repairs to pipes can take 20+ hours to do meanwhile the plumber is very limited in how much rest they can get while still having to be percise and careful with repairs. This is all just poking around the brain in general. You make a ridiculous claim that brain cancer is caused by a bad diet yet you do not source anything even remotely scientific to back up your claims. Brain cancer happens when the brain cells' DNA is damaged as the result of mutations in the genome. While the sources of these mutations vary, even if a bad diet can be linked to mutations, there are so many other factors that trump what little diet contributes to mutations such as exposure to radiation or carcinogens.You also claim that brain inflammation is caused by eating grain, dairy and concentrated sugars. You only need to hit yourself in the head really hard with a hammer to realize this is not the case.If the field of brain surgery is all but a game of bluff, wouldn't there be countless reports of screw ups. Why would people spend all those years in medical school learning a craft which according to you is not supported by science and potentially kill a person and drown in lawsuits and potentially criminal charges? Note - I highly doubt that neurosurgeons carry stethoscopes on them as its function is highly irrelevant to their profession. If the tool serves no purpose it would just get in the way. Imagine poking around a person's brain with something dangling from your neck swinging all around. http://www.mayoclinic.org...;
Brain surgeons get paid too much

A brain surgeon is just a glorified plumber who fixes leaks and faults in the brain. They drill holes in your skull and take out tumours without knowing how or why those tumours got there in the first place. Most of the training they receive is unnecessary nonsense which is not really required for what they do. They don't understand that tumours are the result of a bad diet and can mostly be fixed by adjustments to the patients diet. Blockages and brain inflammation can be caused by eating grain, dairy and concentrated sugars. Doctors are not trained in nutrition, so they wouldn't have a clue what causes tumours and disease in general. They are just a bunch of arrogant monkeys that think they are clever because they got high marks in the Higher School Certificate ATR. Then, they can get into medical school and be cool doctors making bid mega-dollars at the expense of the ignorant public who are gullible enough to believe that doctors have some special knowledge that they don't have. But, alas, doctors haven't got a clue about what causes tumours or disease. It is just a big game of bluff that doctors pretend to know what disease is and how to fix it. They wear white coats and carry stethoscopes around their necks. Note - Stethoscopes are totally useless devices which tells doctors nothing about a persons overall health and physical condition. If a person has an irregular heart beat it may be a dietary problem - (otherwise the person has been poisoned by some dangerous chemical which is contained in many chemical laden foods which are sold in supermarkets.)
Brain surgeons get paid too much

To begin with, you have no source to cite the $10,000 per hour claim. Typically a neurosurgeon's salary is $395,000 starting and will increase up to $589,500. The salary is a match to how much skill and effort is required to become a neurosurgeon. To become one, you have to get a bachelor's degree (4 years of college), followed by medical school (another 4 years), a one-year internship (another year), six to eight years of residency, and take an exam and apply to recieve Board Certification. Imagine all the debt that piles up during those years in college and medical school. On top of that, neurosurgeons have to spend many hours keeping up with the research. If they wish to specialize in the field, then many more years must be put in to be qualified in this subfield. While performing surgery, some last up to 20 hours or more meaning that neurosurgeons have to have loads of energy meanwhile poking around someone's brain where if they make a mistake can end up killing the patient or disabling him/her for life. Because of such rigorous training and the amount of skill for the job, it seems reasonable to pay them a high salary considering how few of them exist in the United States. 1 in 65,580 people in the US are neurosurgeons which comes to around 4,000 in the US. In addition, there are still vacancies.With your last comment about neurosureons having no clue as to how the brain works, I say this,“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” R13; Christopher Hitchens.http://study.com...http://work.chron.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The War in Iraq

To the readers and voters of this debate I apologize for my misspelled word. I was offended by my opponents response and replied from my phone while driving. To my opponent, you have not addressed any of the points made by myself in round 1. Your only argument "killing people is a fun sport while in War" is an ignoramus insult to any one intelligent that debates topics on this site. From this point on I will simply post sources to prove my point. I will not engage in a argument with someone that lacks ethical demeanor and, moral content. =Sources= http://work.colum.edu... http://www.youtube.com...
The War in Iraq

Debate DescriptionIn this debate Con will argue that the War in Iraq is wrong. Pro will have to argue the war in Iraq is just and right.I will start this debate off by making a few points• War can never be a moral act, not even as a "last resort." In the best case, war is a necessary evil.• The war in Iraq does not qualify as a just war, conforming to a set of principles that have evolved among civilized societies. A just cause should not be confused with a just war.• This War has had corrosive effects on our Constitutional rights. It has brought out the worst in our presidents, vice-presidents, and attorney generals who are tempted to take shortcuts.• This War has selectively and profoundly disrupted the lives of more than a million family members across the United States. There have been more than 4,400 U.S. Troop Casualties. Which is roughly 1200 more deaths then that in the trade center bombings. • Spent & Approved War Spending = about $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through November 2010.Rules:[1] Forfeiting of rounds 1 through 3 will constitute a loss of all 7 points.[2] Forfeiting round 4 will constitute a complete loss to this debate I will ask that my opponent make his arguments in a timely manner and leave out arguments based on wordplay or definitions.=Sources=http://usliberals.about.com...
Wars Don't Solve Anything

Hi. I'm Justin. I look forward to a great debate round. While I believe that your personal convictions are admirable, I am going to be arguing from the Negative side. I will be stating that wars do, in fact, solve issues in our world. Basically, my reasoning is this. War is an ugly thing. Anyone who tells you otherwise should is either mentally ill, attempting to cause trouble, or just stupid. I have had known those who died in wars. I know those who are fighting. My family has quite a few military members inside of it. I have friends in the military. If I could, I'd stop any wars from happening ever again... provided that the causes for the right ones went away with them. That's the issue. There is such a thing as "evil" in our world. Evil has reared its ugly head in notable figures throughout history, such as Nero, Hitler, Hussein, and even now with Kim Jong. These men, and those of their kind, are solely responsible for any just war. Corrupt men in power are the worst kind. It's men with unchecked power and unchecked greed that destroy people, nations, and even civilizations. With the recent war on Terror, President George W. Bush declared war on all terrorist groups in 2001, after the attack by suicide pilots on American soil. Now, regardless of your feelings about Bush, this action was taken in response to an attack. In our U.S. Constitution, it is written that all people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When a person or organization threatens those rights of another person, we must act. That is why those who fight for the just cause, the right cause, are the heroes. The ones who do not want to go to war. The ones who flinch and sicken at the sight of death. But they fight anyway, because someone needs them. That is why there is war. Are there unjust wars as well? Yes. Some say our invasion of Iraq was a cover to secure oil. However, there is no denying that the war on terrorism AS A WHOLE is justified. Maybe you're not threatened, but a human being out there is being threatened, many are killed, they're living in fear. Does this sound like life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? It doesn't to me. I would like to end this round, and each of the consequential rounds with a salute to our U.S. troops, and all others out there, who are fighting to protect the innocent. I look forward to the day where your sacrifice is no longer needed, and I hope it will be remembered long after that day. Thank you.
Wars Don't Solve Anything

Do you have a loved one in a war right now? Tell me, Do you know if they'll be coming home soon? Or if they'll even return at all? What is the point of war. The point of war is to defeat the enemy, (who really isn't an enemy) and make them live the way we want them to. War just basically takes our families drops them in a dangerous course and tells them to kill and try not to die. We have lost over millions of loved ones in the course of time and countless dollars have been spent on missiles, guns, armor, e.t.c. Wars are meant to spread peace but how does that work when you have a million intimidating men in front of you pointing guns ready to fire. People risk their lives for what? To catch a possible terrorist. No that's wrong. I believe wars should end.
Noah's flood story is based on historical evidence

Rebuttals: Con claims there have been thousands of new discoveries but never correlates them to Noah's flood narrative. No reliable mythologist has found that Noah's flood narrative was derived from other myths (Akkadian and Sumerian). Con claims that the similarities are too much of coincidences and thus cannot be discounted, however there are also notable differences as well. 1) The Babylonian flood tablet was not originally in the epic of Gilgamesh (1), but drew upon Sumerian myths and the epic of Atrahasis. Lets compare the similarities between Gilgamesh and Noah's flood narrative (2): 1. Gilgamesh has many gods forming a council in secret about causing a flood. Yahweh directly tells Noah openly that a flood is coming (Gen. 6) 2. Ea tells Utnapishtim to build a boat of 180 feet and 6 decks with 1 acre of floor space. The seed of every animal was to be carried as well as family and possessions. Noah's Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Noah's Ark only had 3 decks (Gen. 6). 3. Ea instructed Utanpishtim to lie to the people of Shuruppak in saying that they are leaving the city because Enlil hated them. When they left the city, it would be filled with good fortune. It took 7 days after a festival. Yahweh simply tells Noah to build the Ark and it takes about 120 years (4) 4. When the storm came, the gods climbed up and wept Yahweh simply was sorry that he made man but no indication that he cried or climbed any mount. 5. Utnapishtim was made a god Noah was blessed by God and entered a covenant but was never made divine Now to the Akkadian (4) Genesis and Atrahasis 1. The gods get each portion of the universe. Yahweh rules over all 2. Humans multiply and become too noisy, thus the gods send a plague 1st, but their plan fails. Famine and drought then follows. Finally the gods send a great flood. Human wickedness grows in the earth (Gen. 6) thus God executes his ultimate judgement of the great flood, saving Noah because of his righteousness. 3. The gods would allow for humans to grow, but 1/3 of the children would die. Yahweh promises to never flood the earth again. Now were these important details completely derived from one another? Absolutely not. Therefore, the similarities found are just characteristics common in ancient near east literature, but show no literary borrowing. Con's attack on Arnold Mendez has no relevance to the debate. He's qualified to speak of the longevity in Genesis. Same goes for the other experts. The Garden of Eden has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want, we can have a separate debate for that, but we're now debating Noah's flood narrative. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.sparknotes.com... 3. http://www.ldolphin.org... 4. http://education-portal.com...
Noah's flood story is based on historical evidence

Thanks Sagey Con claims that Sumerian myths were the origins of Noah's flood, however scholars no longer believe that any borrowing occurred (1). Most scholars hold this view (2). Con cites a source saying that the ancients used a lunar calendar and so counted in terms of moons, however Genesis 8:13 makes a clear distinction between months and years: "Noah was now 601 years old. On the first day of the new year, ten and a half months after the flood began, the floodwaters had almost dried up from the earth. Noah lifted back the covering of the boat and saw that the surface of the ground was drying." Evidence for pro-longed human life: There are several things which can prolong or shorten human lifespan (genetics, stress, environmental factors, etc.) Human longevity is consistent with natural decay rates (3) as well as other factors. Conclusion: Con fails to address the evidence confirming Noah's flood narrative. It's very clear that Noah's flood narrative is based on historical evidence. Sources: 1. "However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the "historical framework, and not included intention or interpretation. Millard,"A New Babylonian "Genesisï¿½ Story, in Hess 2. "The similarities between the Genesis account and the "Atra-Hasis Epic" do not support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing from the Mesopotamian but do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis 1-11, as Jacobsen holds. P.D. Miller also admits that "there were Mesopotamian models that anticipate the structure of Genesis 1-11 as a whole.", Tsumura, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood", in ibid., p. 47. 3. http://www.amendez.com...
Noah's flood story is based on historical evidence

This is not a scientific debate on whether or not a global flood happened and the like. Judges shall judge the debate strictly on the following criteria and explain why: 1) Strong definitions " If any ambiguity is found within each debators terms, count it against them 2) Arguments " The effectiveness of the arguments presented based on the premises and how well either side presents them with clarity. 3) Counter-arguments " Their effectiveness in how well they defend their argument or/and weaken their opponent's argument 4) Logical fallacies " Pointing out logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments demonstrates how well the debators understand logic. If an opponent uses personal attacks, etc. That is counted against them. Judges must name a specific fallacy and quote con or pro's exact words in context. 5) Unaddressed points " If an opponent fails to respond to a point, you are to count that against them. If they agree, that boosts their opponent's side. 6) Burden of proof " Was the burden of proof fulfilled by either side? If not, count that against the debator(s) 7) Evidence " who used the most qualitative and quantitative evidence to back up their claims? Who discredited their opponent's sources as fraud? Any evidence demonstrated to be weak is counted against the person who presented it. Judges may also discredit the evidence with an explanation. If however another member finds multiple sources discrediting their explanation, it won't count. Whoever uses the most qualitive/quantative arguments/counters and evidence wins.