BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Conduct" Voting Category Should be Removed or Replaced

Also, I understand that my opponent is currently being clogged up by college -- I too, have finals next week D: But no more formalities, to the debate! ===== An inventive to avoid petty insults, and focus on debate ===== I agree with my opponent that ignoring one's conduct can lead to a bad debate. If we were to throw insults back and forth, then we'd simply go nowhere. However, the other aspect of "good conduct" rests on the premise that "bad words" or "attitudes" should be something censored, or prevented. In the same way censorship in media and banned books should be done away with, being voted down for cursing should be removed also. But this leads us the point my opponent uses: while one's conduct may be irrelevant to the actual debate, it helps because people can make petty insults and lower the quality of the debate. I fully agree with this assessment, but the conclusion is wrong. As the resolution allows, "conduct" should be replaced by other voting categories, such as "clarity" or any other numerous possible categories. If my opponent agrees with my assessment that conduct is only useful for helping the debate become more focused on the actual topic (and not agreeing to disagree), then we can see that there are much more useful replacements. ===== Don't need to remove it anyway ===== If that's my opponent back up plan, then I argue that we should simply remove unnecessary points such as that. If, as my opponent says, these categories don't constitute anything towards the vote, then WHY put them there? If they are simply for polls, then it shouldn't be a "voting category", as the resolution clearly states. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent need not worry about time restraints, for I have them too. %#$& finals!
The "Conduct" Voting Category Should be Removed or Replaced

OFF TOPIC:Once again, I don't have much time (due to college related matters, but this won't be a problem after now since spring break starts for me after class today) ============================================================================= My opponent is correct in regards to the notion that conduct has nothing to do with the actual arguments. To suggest otherwise would be committing the style over substance fallacy. With that said, enforced conduct is a means of preventing debaters from going into areas that do not really concern the debate (as a poster in the comment section has indicated . . . an "insult fest" if you will) and keeping the debate focused on nothing more than the actual arguments at hand. In other words, conduct being enforced by some means is an incentive to do nothing more than actually debate. Of course, let us assume that my opponent is correct regarding the relevance of conduct. This does not warrant it's removal. Rather, I could very well compromise while upholding the resolution by agreeing that no points should be counted towards conduct. In other words, "conduct" would be no more effective than "who did you agree with before/after the debate." This would please my opponent in that the conduct category does not impact the judging to determine who had won and would uphold my side of the resolution (in that conduct is neither removed or replaced, but simply given no weight in determining the debate's winner). Due to time constraints, that's all I shall be saying for now. Keep in mind that the above points may need some elaboration depending on PRO's rebuttal. Engage.
The "Conduct" Voting Category Should be Removed or Replaced

The resolution should be self-explanatory: I am arguing that the "conduct" category you decide on, when voting on a debate, should be removed. My argument is simple. This is a DEBATING website, and therefore DEBATING should be the primary concern. An argument should be judged on the effectiveness of the rhetoric, the amount of reliable sources, and the overall strength of the argument. Conduct is an impotent category that shouldn't be a voting category, but at best something that is rule of thumb.
guarnateed salvation of infants is unjust

"They just got the advantage of dying young. Everyone else gets judged for their actions. they get the full enchilada of heaven just for never reaching the age of reason."Shouldn't this be enough to get into heaven? They were robbed of their ability to have a life, and therefore get first dibs on heaven. As they are completely sinless creatures, they are the only people that truly deserve salvation. Everybody sins after the age of reason, but babies never sinned. "Annihilation would almost be more 'neutral' and arguably just."No it wouldn't be just. Can you imagine being a mother/father and watching your child be shot by a mad man? 50 years later, you get judged sent up to heaven, and your baby isn't there. You know your baby committed no sins, and therefore it should be there. Annihilation of the baby would not only be unjust to it, but to it's family.
guarnateed salvation of infants is unjust

i'm not saying they should be punished. or saved. it's just unjust for either situation. annihilation would almost be more 'neutral' and arguably just. but again not arguing either. don't get me wrong, it would be loving for God to save them, and possible. but they just got the advantage of dying young. everyone else gets judged for their actions. they get the full enchilada of heaven just for never reaching the age of reason. plus, it would almost seem to promote people going around killing infants, cause they all get heaven. not that anyone should condone such horrific acts, and there's surely something to be said about not doing that even if they get heaven.
guarnateed salvation of infants is unjust

Hi, I look forward to a good debate.DefinitionsJust: Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actionsI argue that it is perfectly just that babies get a free ticket to heaven.God is omnipotentIf God is omnipotent, that means He knows everything that is going on. He can watch each baby, and therefore when judging time comes, He knows that the baby has not done anything wrong. Therefore He does not have to waste his precious time deciding if the baby gets into heaven.Babys are sinlessBabies cannot commit sin because they cannot know they're commiting sin. "The Bible clearly teaches that the only certain way to heaven is through Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We are confident that God will not hold anyone accountable for any knowledge he did not receive. At the same time, the Bible emphatically states that Christ is the only sure way to salvation. Anyone who has heard of the saving grace of Jesus, and rejects it, would be thumbing his nose at God (John 3:36)." [1]In conclusion, I argue that babies get automatic salvation because they can't know about God, much less reject his word. How can one be punished if he doesn't know the consequences of his actions?[1] http://www.gospel.com...;
guarnateed salvation of infants is unjust

Many Christians hold the view that unborn and born infants and children who die before the age of reason or eternal responsibility are guaranteed access to heaven. For instance, Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites: Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. It seems obvious that if a child/infant dies before they are responsible for accepting salvation they should not be condemned to Hell, but that they should be automatically granted salvation also seems equally unjust. How, in this view, is God just by automatically saving all infants/children who die before they can be held responsible?
Anti-viral drugs should be used to treat the sick, not protect the posh

I propose that private practitioners should be prohibited from providing over-privileged panic-merchants with prophylactic prescriprions that protect posh patients from porcine pandemics. That's because although drugs like Tamiflu can prevent an individual from contracting swine flu, there aren't enough stocks of this anti-viral medicine to go round and, consequently, paranoid posh people have been purchasing this medicine from private doctors, even though they are not suffering any symptoms of the virus. (1) This costs them a small fortune but the posh know that if Tamiflu is running out, doctors would rather prescribe the drug to innocent little children rather than bloated tycoons or inbred aristocrats. You see, as far as the posh are concerned, the poor to can go to hell in a handcart - make no mistake, these over-privileged toffs and snobs don't care how many orphans die so long as they don't contract the virus themselves and have to suffer the inconvenience of a runny nose and a sore throat. Now, several governments around the world have, quite rightly, prohibited posh people from handing over huge wedges of cash in exchange for a Tamiflu precription and I contend that all governments should adopt this policy forthwith. Thank you. (1) http://www.newsweek.com...
Anti-viral drugs should be used to treat the sick, not protect the posh

" That said, when it comes to matters of public health, a civilised country must provide treatment according to need rather than ability to pay." Ability to pay is code for-- having produced something of equal or greater value. Tossing value after need, i.e., high value after low or no value, destroys value. I dunno what kinda civilization it is you're after where the goal is to destroy value, but... "After all, we are not talking about subsidising people to slob about at home scoffing pizzas and supping beer: we are talking about matters of life and death. " Matters of life and death for those who will continue, if they live, to scoff pizzas and sup beer, no? ^_^. " That is why the provision of life saving anti-viral drugs cannot be left to the mercy of the open market where the economics of supply and demand will dictate that these medicines go to the highest bidders, not those most in need. " This assumes that the supply is divinely fixed, it is not. As I've noted above, production get's ramped up-- the economics of supply and demand dictate that if you follow them, people will produce as much as you're willing to pay for. Even if you want to pay for it to go to worthless folk for that matter. But only if you permit them to make money doing so. If you remove part of their market, you make it so it will cost even more than it would otherwise for your "give the drugs to the poor and ill" scheme to work. Much as I dislike the goal of distributing things according to need, it is made easier, not harder, due to economies of scale in drugs, if you permit the "posh" to buy drugs on the grounds of caution. " Therefore, it is right that governments step in to block greedy doctors and grasping pharmacists selling anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu on the open market until sufficient supplies have been produced to cover the entire population. " See above. " Of course, in the short term, government control of supply may mean less profits for the pharmaceutical companies and increased anxiety for well-healed worriers, but in the long term it makes good business sense." You have it backwards. In the long term it means the pharmaceutical companies are crippled, just like insurance companies today with all the government controls they have to deal with. It's only in the IMMEDIATE MOMENT that you will get any raise of supplies to the poor by forbidding them from going to the rich-- and in the long run, it will destroy the capability to produce such drugs unless you pour in massive wasteful subsidies (screwing up something else people "need"), meaning next time the poor get sick they'll be far less likely to be treated. "However, if it does become a pandemic that snuffs out sufferers on a wholesale basis, it will kill many customers of the pharmaceutical companies' other products" The poor are customers? It's the "customers" you're seeking to forbid access to drugs to, Eggleston. :) Remember folks-- supply isn't fixed, the more people you permit to go after a good like drugs (which has extremely high economies of scale), the more affordable that good becomes.
Anti-viral drugs should be used to treat the sick, not protect the posh

Many thanks to R_R for responding to this challenge. It is a pleasure to debate him once again. Those familiar with my opponent will know that he firmly believes that free market forces should prevail over state intervention wherever possible. To a an extent, I agree with this philosophical outlook. Here in the UK, for example, living on state handouts has become a way of life for many people (1) and this costs hardworking taxpayers hundreds of billions every year. That said, when it comes to matters of public health, a civilised country must provide treatment according to need rather than ability to pay. After all, we are not talking about subsidising people to slob about at home scoffing pizzas and supping beer: we are talking about matters of life and death. That is why the provision of life saving anti-viral drugs cannot be left to the mercy of the open market where the economics of supply and demand will dictate that these medicines go to the highest bidders, not those most in need. Therefore, it is right that governments step in to block greedy doctors and grasping pharmacists selling anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu on the open market until sufficient supplies have been produced to cover the entire population. My opponent wrote: "Do you want some of the poor to be treated, or none of them except in the immediate moment (?)" Of course, in the short term, government control of supply may mean less profits for the pharmaceutical companies and increased anxiety for well-healed worriers, but in the long term it makes good business sense. Thankfully, it would appear that swine flu is not as virulent, and the transmission of the disease not so widespread, as was feared when I started this debate. However, if it does become a pandemic that snuffs out sufferers on a wholesale basis, it will kill many customers of the pharmaceutical companies' other products - which would result in an overall financial loss. Therefore, for the sake of innocent human beings as well as the long term profits of the pharmaceutical industry, I urge you to vote for life and vote Pro. Thank you. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Anti-viral drugs should be used to treat the sick, not protect the posh

Let's take a looksy at your sauce. As it puts things, production of the drugs in question is being "ramped up" by the private companies which create it. Hmm, why do companies ramp production up? I dunno, probably because more people are paying for it. Now, if these companies make more money, you send a market signal that treating diseases like these will lead to profits. This means they create more of the drugs in question, which means, due to economies of scale, those drugs get cheaper soon-- meaning more people will be able to afford them. Whereas, if you simply hand out the drug regardless of pay, you make it so that production is less likely to occur. That means fewer of those who need it get treated. Maybe the posh here are being morons, or maybe they produce enough to justify the additional caution. Either way, their actions benefit the poor sufferers of the disease by creating a market for the drug, a market without which the poor would have no one to mooch the drug from. Do you want some of the poor to be treated, or none of them except in the immediate moment, since you're so concerned with them? :)
An 800 meter race is longer in terms of length than a 400 meter race.

"If I opponent accepts this debate, he agrees to all of my definitions and agrees to not contest them. " Since I am not "I opponent" and I am also not a "he," I am free to dispute the definitions and contest them. "Race" is actually a word which describes biological categories within species, as you can see from this wikipedia article: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Because of this, the rest of the terms defined regarding numbers and lengths are completely nonsensical and do not apply to the real topic at hand. An 800 meter race clearly does not exist as race itself is an abstract concept so it cannot possibly be longer in terms of length than a 400 meter race because a 400 meter race also does not exist.
An 800 meter race is longer in terms of length than a 400 meter race.

DefinitionsYou should accept my definitions because I made this resolution. If I opponent accepts this debate, he agrees to all of my definitions and agrees to not contest them. "An"-the form of "a" before a vowel. 800: the number equal to 8*100meter: the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second.race : a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.long: Extending or traveling a relatively great distance.length: a measure of one dimension that measures distance.SyllogismIf x length units > y length units, x >y in terms of length800 meters > 400 metersTherefore, the resoloution is true.YAY!
trolololoo is good.

Of all places, I cannot believe that you used YouTube comments as a source. The YouTube comment section is a place where people like you come to add fuel to the fire. In real life, no one likes a person like that, so I recommend you get back to reality. In the comment section for this debate, I have people wanting them to use THEM as a SOURCE in order to show you how radical your thinking is. So, if you want people to respect you, get back to reality.
Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools

Okay first off I am sorry for taking so long to get back to this debate, my laptops battery ran dry and I had to order a replacement. My opponents first contention that Creationism isn't scientific is wrong. His statement that it isn't falsifiable is also wrong. But even if it were not falsifiable, that alone would not make it wrong. "Falsifiability" is not a criteria which is used by science any more to figure out what is right or wrong. I would also be interested in what evidence there is against Creationism. I haven't seen anyone disprove the contention that animals need a designer, and if my opponent wishes to disprove this, he must disprove these two beliefs about life that form the basis of Creationist theory, 1) biological systems show objective patterns 2) these biological patterns cannot be reasonably ascribed to chance If he could do that I would be happy to concede because I am aware of my heavy BoP here. Another contention he makes to Creation theories is that only a few scientists agree with it, but this is just an argument ad populum. I would also like to see the poll he mentions. He then states that Creationism does not uphold to the scientific method. I believe it does, however, because it makes a hypothesis that there are objective patterns working in nature which cannot be made by chance, it makes statements based on evidence, such as evidence of the complex workings of cells in mutations, saying these mutations cannot occur purely through a chance mechanism alone,n and these experiments can be repeated and proven/disproven by scientists in a lab environment. Dembski cites such mutations, if you would look his statements on my statement up, and he is a brilliant scientist who should know about that. On the statement about my idea being unconstitutional, I would say that yes the desire to teach it is based on religion, but this is just a genetic fallacy. There is no connection between religion and the idea of design. Deism teaches that things are designed, as do many other types of pantheistic views that are not usually classified as religious, for example syncretic religions.
Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools

"Thanks for proposing this debate Installgentoo, let's make it a good one." And thank you to you for taking it up so quickly. It's very hard to get people to debate topics quickly in my experience. Now onto my argument. I have to establish two things in this argument, it seems. One, to show that Creationism is a viable thesis of the origins of life on this Planet. Two, that it is appropriate that it be taught in public schools. If I should fail to demonstrate either of these claims, I will instruct people to vote for Con. To prove my first point, that Creationism is a viable thesis of the origin of life on this Planet, I would like to say that there are many facts in the make-up of animals today that makes them appear as if they are the products of an intelligent Creator. The eyes on many animals, for example, are delicately made, and one mistake would cause them to become unusable. They in fact operate like cameras, and we all know cameras can only be made by intelligent human beings. Why? Because cameras display complex patterns which allow them to function to capture images so perfectly. Eyes also display complex patterns in themselves. Even Darwin said that certain features like a human eye could not be accounted for by random evolution over geographic time, and that it was beyond our imagination.[1] Such objective patterns can only be the work of an extremely intelligent mind or consciousness, which is what theists mean when they talk about God. On my second proposition, that Creationism is an appropriate thing to teach in schools, I would like to say that teaching Creationism in public schools does not violate the first amendment to the constitution. Why not? Well, Creationism teaches nothing other than a biological thesis of the origin of life. Creationism is supported by the objective evidence present in biological life, that shows evidence of a design. It does not teach any form of religion, it only teaches biological ideas about the origins of life. No child, no matter what their beliefs, should feel threatened by such presentation of facts. Religion is about faith. Creationism is about presenting facts about life, and that is it. Nobody's faith is bolstered by such a presentation. Citations [1]http://www.goodreads.com....