BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
wee u bettre than wee.

My opponents fail to provide definitions, as well as their horrible spelling, so I would like to correct these stances Wii- a home video game console released by Nintendo Wii U- the first Nintendo console to support high-definition graphics Better- comparative of being good and well First off I will want to argue that the Wii U has a more vast selection of games than Wii When the Wii U first launched, sales were slow and the mountains of sales were very rocky. But now as Wii U is overtaking Wii's own popularity, we see less of Wii games than Wii U games. I have been to EB stores to find some games for my Wii and I was disappointed by the selection they had. I felt like I should have bought a Wii U because they have a bigger selection of games and much better graphics rather than a Wii, which is only popular among Just Dance and Wii sports. Wii U enables you to use hand-eye coordination as well as giving you much more better game qualities.[1] Sure, Wii has mario, but that shouldn't be the only reason my opponents say that Wii is better. There are better games and better graphics when we play Mario on Wii U, therefore making this claim illogical and unimportant. Moving on, I want to analyze the cost-benefit analysis. They could *possibly* argue that the Wii U is much more expensive (100 dollar difference to be exact) and some people can't afford the Wii U. But I believe that there is a reason why they are expensive. It is because they improved significantly in their quality of visuals as well as providing their game console for the game, making it more valuable. Quality over quantity. That's the key to the Wii U 1) http://www.tomsguide.com... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will deliver my other argument in the second round Because my opponents failed to provide a rule, I will like to state one. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate
The earth is spherical and spinning

My opponent accuses me of "dropping several points" he claims to make in favor of a spherical earth. I cause him of the same. Since the forums are an informal format for debate, I've chosen to make this formal, so that each argument is discussed and more or less settled in a formal way. My opponent also uses plenty of insults in his argument, so this way we can try to eliminate some of this. I would love to go back to believing the earth is a ball again, and put this behind me. He seems pretty serious in proving the earth is a ball, but all he wants to discuss is the sun, moon, stars, satellites and other objects unrelated to the shape of the earth. Saying the distance to the sun proves the shape of the earth is not science. It is unfounded speculation. Sort of like saying different monkey skeletons prove evolution. Unfounded speculations. Though lights in the sky are sometimes useful in an argument, these objects and the way they behave have little to do with the shape of the earth directly. Holding these theories as the absolute truth and ridiculing anyone who dares ask questions or think up alternate theories goes against the very definition of science. Therefore I challenge my opponent to prove that for one, the earth has the curvature allowed for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, and it's supposed axial rotation at the speed of about 1,000 miles per hour. Format 1. Burden of proof is shared, meaning I must also prove that the earth is NOT a ball. 2. Round 1 is for either acceptance or my opponent may start his argument in this round and forfeit the last round, since the forfeit bug is a nuisance, he must simply type forfeited in the last round, any forfeiture before then is considered a concession and a loss. 3. No new proofs in round 3. 4. Since con's arguments are mostly empirical observations, and essentially against the most widely accepted views of the scientific community, any source can be considered valid until that source is proven untrustworthy, or that proof is found to be fake beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Sources may be typed into a linked Google document placed in the argument. 5. Definitions are pretty self explanatory, but anything I missed may be discussed in the comments section l. Good luck to my opponent in proving that spinning ball, should he be brave enough to accept the challenge. This challenge has been issued several times with a few thousand dollars as a reward, and it hasn't been met yet, so I feel confident my opponent hasn't a chance.
Haiku Battle

For this debate it does not matter whether you are con or pro. All that matters is who can write the best Haiku. Haiku- a major form of Japanese verse, written in 17 syllables divided into 3 lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables, and employing highly evocative allusions and comparisons, often on the subject of nature or one of the seasons. This debate will be 5 rounds. Since a Haiku is focused on seasons this is how the debate will be broken down to. Haiku must be original from writer no plagiary. Round 1- acceptance Round 2- Haiku about Summer Round 3- Haiku about Fall Round 4- Haiku about Winter Round 5- Haiku about Spring The voter will have to choose based on how well did the writer write about the season. If the writer was able to follow the 5 syllables 7 syllables 5 Syllables three line format. May the best Haiku win.
Welfare

It would appear that Con has missed his opportunity to respond.In closing, I have contended that welfare serves a role in reducing poverty, creating mobility, and acting as a safety net. In my arguments, I have proven that welfare does reduce poverty, create mobility, and act as a safety net. Con and I are in agreement that reforms are direly needed. I believe that welfare, as it stands today, could and should be strengthened to allow a greater rebound for people who fall under economic hardships, instead of providing the bare minimum to keep them from poverty. Con has done little more than hurl attack at those who need these social safety nets. Fact is, we aren't all born the same. Some of us were born into different circumstances than others. Some of us came from wealth, or came from a great school. Some of us didn't. Some of us can do everything right in life and still live at poverty level. For the sake of society, we should all work to ensure nobody goes to bed hungry in what is the greatest nation on earth. We shouldn't stand for the high level of poverty in what is supposed to be the richest nation on earth. I'll end my debate with a quote from President Obama. “Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.” I agree. Vote Pro!Also, here's a fun song for everybody to enjoy. http://www.youtube.com...
Welfare

While welfare has it's pros, they do not out number it's cons. In 2012, there were 4,300,000 citizens on welfare in the United States. There were also 46,000,000 on food stamps, and 5,600,000 on unemployment insurance. While the money is partially going towards deserving Americans, it partially goes to those with a welfare addiction. http://www.statisticbrain.com... Welfare's major flaw: Ineptocracy. Ineptocracy- A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. From my perspective, the Obama Administration's over-the-top support of welfare is creating a an inept government in the U.S.A. The least capable of producing represent the population on welfare who choose not to work because of a condition called welfare addiction. Which is mainly when the wage of welfare is higher than the minimum wage job of that state. An example of this is Hawaii, who hands out an equivalent of $17.50 hourly minimum wage in welfare. This came from the same statistic site as shown above. The minimum wage of Hawaii for the working population is $7.50 http://www.minimum-wage.org.... That is $10.25 less than those who do not work. If the Obama administration wishes to help out the minimum wage of the country, which was one of his main points in the state of the union address, then he should start by atleast making the welfare rate the same as the minimum wage rate. Those who do not work represent the least likely to produce in our definition, and they vote in a president who is incapable of leading,so they can continue to make money of the average tax payer. Thank You
The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2

Alright, this is pretty straightforward: The U.S. Government starts at the top level with 1 section. U.S. Constitution This is then broken down into 3 equal branches Legislative Branch Judicial Branch Executive Branch The Executive Branch which consists of the President & VP, is broken down then into 14 additional departments as well as a number of Independent Establishments and Government Corporations Health and Human Services (HHS) is one of the Gov Departments Under HHS is the most expensive headache of the Pharmaceutical Industry Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The FDA, who is in control of most regulations for the drug industry, hides its own publicly available NDA (New Drug Application) prices hidden in a labrynth of wep pages on its own site. These prices, for the fiscal year 2010, was $1,841,500 PER APPLICATION. In total, there were payments made to the FDA as follows: Application fees -- $172,238, 150 Establishment fees -- $183,328,513 Product fees -- $173,709,880 Total fees collected (just for Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees) -- $529,276,543 This can be seen at: http://blogs.plos.org...;It can also be seen directly from the FDA here: http://www.fda.gov... Forbes also reports that properly adjusting for drug trials as is required by the FDA, 1 single new drug can cost a staggering $12 billion dollars, including clinical trials which can cost as much as $100 million a piece. http://www.forbes.com...;On top of these staggering costs brought forward just by the FDA, medscape.com, one the most FDA friendly review sites on the net reports that the process of getting a new medication from idea to market, is about 12 years. http://www.medscape.com...;Next is the Affordable Care Act's new Pharnmaceutical Tax which by itself is costing between $3 billion - $4 billion to each manufacturing company each year. http://www.irs.gov...;Worst part is, this only accounts for the FDA; this does NOT account for fire code, health code, OSHA, local taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, etc. Let's think about taxes for a second here: The U.S. currently has a 35%-39% federal corporate tax rate which is 3rd highest on the planet. There are then the state taxes of an average of 10%, followed by the local taxes which average 4.5%. That's an average total of 54% paid in taxes to the government annually. http://www.ey.com...;All of these expendatures outlined, it's not a wonder why prices for medications in America are so darn high.
The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2

Where pro states "Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world. " "New" may be ambiguous in the pharmaceutical world. I ask to strike that word alone, and if necessary further define in context of the debate.
The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2

*NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term "relative". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world." Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word "Costs" as used in the debate title is defined as "The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as "Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup." I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.
Burden Of Proof Is An Important Component Of Debates

Ignoring the the fact that Con just forfeited by making an argument in an acceptance round, let's get on with this debate.I. Cross-Examination" BOP was never an important component to anyone except whom have never had what it takes to win any conflict to begin with."A debate isn't a conflict. It's an exchange of information with the purpose of providing enough objective information to convince voters. "BOP is based on seeing - evidence is based on seeing - demonstation, acceptance, realization are all about feeling."BoP is not based on seeing, it's based on proof. The burden of proof. It's based on the need of somebody to provide facts and evidence for a claim they make. It's what requires somebody to support what they say, rather than just expect everyone to believe it.Also, acceptance and feeling have nothing to do with debating. Debating is objective. Inserting subjective feeling into it is pointless as it does no good for your case. Nobody cares about what a debater feels, they only care about what he can show.Those are the only relevant points Con made. Everything else he talks about is going on about philosophy and science. Neither of which are debating.II. ConstructBurden of Proof isn't something that is given out, it is acquired by making a claim. The nature of the claim will usually determine whether the burden is shared or not. For example, if I were to make the claim " The FSM is the one true god." Then it would be my responsibility to prove that. However, since there are multiple gods, then I could say that BoP is shared because my opponent could provide an example of a god that is the actual true god.But if I make the claim "FSM exists" Then I cannot give BoP to Con. That would bring up the Negative-Proof Fallacy. By that I mean that I would be asking Con to falsify an unfalsifiable premise. Which is by definition impossible. So the only thing he can do is negate my arguments which I provide to support my burden.The sole purpose of the burden, as I stated in my cross is to force somebody to back up a claim. Without it, claims would just have to be accepted without reason. Which makes debating pointless.
Burden Of Proof Is An Important Component Of Debates

BOP was never an important component to anyone except whom have never had what it takes to win any conflict to begin with. Philosophers did not need to give people a BOP, they said what they said based on what they observed and analyze through decades of their time - what they said was either agreed upon or disagreed upon, there wasn't any BOP involved. Over that period of time, philosophy gave birth to what we know today as Science. Science is not based on BOP - it's based on high-level observation, analysis and demonstration. Philosophy has always had a harder time with people, because it's not as easily demonstrated, because it requires the receiver to not be stupid and receptive towards what they are saying, throughout the context it bares truly. Science works with an already existing system of function and reaction, so it's easier to show people that what you're saying is true when you can recreate what you have observed and analyzed - other things, like human psyche, dream analogies, parables - everything that is felt, instead of seen, are impossible to demonstrate, which is wise men take this reality as they would seeing a flash of lightning - it's all relative, you can't teach everyone everything, so either lose your mind and have some fun, or close yourself off from the people to live in a remote area. The human mind is split up in two way, things that can be seen - things that can't be felt. I have no imagination that I can see, I can only feel shapes, essence and colors. I can't see, because seeing is not the only component - BOP is based on seeing - evidence is based on seeing - demonstation, acceptance, realization are all about feeling.
The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

I will present the argument in the form Modus Ponens: P1. If both god and human ego have the same characteristics, then God will have the same origin as that of the ego. P2. Both god and human ego have the same characteristics . C. Therefore, God has the same origin as that of the ego. P1: Does both God and the human ego have the same characteristics? To answer this question we must look at the Bible, and also examine what people of faith believe are the wants and needs of God. Quick Bible synopsis: God creates the world, then creates two people. These two screw up, then God screws them up, endowes them with death, and Eve must suffer terrible pain with child birth, that'll teach her! Then God assures them that all successive generations after them will be just as screwed as they are. It goes on that people screw up again, then God screws them with a world wide flood, except for Noah which is his favorite. The whole of The Old Testament has this type of content. God is always defending against his creation's unacceptable behavior, it appears that he feels threatened by it. It is important to remember that from within the ego system all defenses do what they would defend. "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" Exodus 21:24 What do people of faith believe are the wants and needs of God? People of faith express that God wants us to love him, worship, and praise him. The same can be said of the human ego, more commonly know as "ego boost" So, does both God and the human ego have the same characteristics? I'll let the voters decide. Human ego originates from the human mind. It is impossible for it to have come from anywhere else.
The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

before accepting completely read R1. definitions: The Judeo-Christian God = The God that is described in The Holy Bible derive: to have something as a source : to come from something ego: Ego as defined in psychology (1) and as expressed by spiritual systems of thought (2) e.g: Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and A Course In Miracles It is important to remember that the "ego" is an aspect of the mind. It seems that I have given "ego" a broad definition. Simply put, the ego is just the concept of self. I listed both the psychological and spiritual definitions of ego. There are seeming differences between both definitions, but these differences occur only in the form of the definitions, while the content of both definitions are consistent. I can see no contradictions between the two. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... debate format: R1 is for acceptance only R2 arguments R3 rebuttals and closing arguments I am (pro) for the resolution. Con must argue that the "Judeo-Christian God" has a source from anywhere other than the human mind.before accepting: please, no devil's advocates. I intend this to be a somewhat serious debate. Preferably, someone from within the Christian sects.
The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

"What are other possible causes that could lead some people to believe in the ***existence*** of God?" First, there are many things that could lead to the existence of the idea of God. It could have come out of a "disease of languages" as Max M"ller believed. It could have arisen from primitive people unable to make sense out of dreams as E.B. Tylor believed. Of course also God could be real and have no beginning therefore nothing would lead to his existence. Given the current evidence by the pro argument, none of these are any less likely than derivation from the ego. Con - 'Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around.' Pro -"But, he fails to show how this could be the case, and in order to that he would have prove that god exists. Perhaps he may elaborate on this in R3." The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, that being said I will elaborate as requested. I stated not that it did in fact derive from God, but that it is just as likely to have derived from God as visa versa given the evidence. besides it would not need to be proved that God exists, only that the Idea of God exists, which, given the fact that we are having this debate, I think that much is proved already. It is to say "since these two things are similar, one came from the other". There is absolutely no evidence to prove one case over the other. Once again correlation DOES NOT equal causation and this argument was purely hypothetical since it is bypassing an more fundamental flaw in the argument and assuming just that. con - "The mind and ego are one and the same. By studying ego defense mechanisms is how we understand how the mind works." I must strongly disagree with the statement "the mind and the ego are one and the same'. the mind and the ego aren't separate entities, rather the ego is a very specific part of the mind, not one and the same as the mind. The example pro gave from Wikipedia was over psychological projection. This is a very relevant to the debate over ego, however i'm afraid pro's example seems to further prove my point. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism as pro said, and therefore exists to defend the host that already feels threatened by something, not to threaten the host itself. Examples from pro's source include bullying and marital infidelity projection, specifically intended to make the host feel better about itself by putting others below it, precisely the opposite of the position of God. Thanks for debating!
The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

Con says: 'It is facile to say that if God and human ego have the same characteristics, they have the same source. Correlation never equals causation and this argument is assuming precisely that.' What are other possible causes that could lead some people to believe in the existense of God? Con goes on to say: 'Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around.' But, he fails to show how this could be the case, and in order to that he would have prove that god exists. Perhaps he may elaborate on this in R3. Con also states: 'In any event, even if it were all true, you simply have stated that God and the human ego have a common ancestor, not that God is derived from the human ego.' The mind and ego are one and the same. By studying ego defense mechanisms is how we understand how the mind works. and also: 'The Judeo-Christian God is also a being placed above all humans, a being that dwarfs any human's greatness unlike the things created by the human ego, which always compliment the human(s) creating them. The human ego would feel nothing but threatened by the existence of a beings such as God.' The human ego produces many kinds of delusions, and not all of them are complimentary. http://en.wikipedia.org...