BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
science is everything

This one might be a tough one to argue against. I also believe that there is no God, and I do believe that science is the key to our future. But is science everything? Though it can explain many things in the stuff we love, I do not believe that it is everything. We have other things we can hold on too; art, literature, music, etc... Science may offer an eventual answer, but it does not always answer the things in our personal lives. When we look for reasons why a person acts a certain way, we can look at the sciences of personality and the brain to explain the actions, but Einstein does not get us through a break up, or a family members death. Micheal Jackson does, Leonardo De Vinci does, and Lemony Snicket does. Science only offers explanations. Art, hobbies, friends, love, and explorations give us every thing else.
science is everything

Any one can change any one's way of thinking. I can see your argument for art being a branch of science. It can help us explain the world in which we live. It is so much more than that though. It also connects us to the world in which we live. It allows us to feel the world. Science explains it, but art lets us feel it. If art is a branch of science, then it is a branch of every thing else. Politics, war, peace, cooking, sports. Every thing. Art is not just explainable by science. In a way, art explains science.
science is everything

Science explains our reaction to different forms of art. It does not explain our interpretation of it. Science explains death, and our reaction and feelings towards the subject, but does not explain the art it inspires. How will science explain Starry Night, or Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven? Yes science can explain the reactions, and the history behind the pieces. It even gives an idea of what might have inspired it. So What? Interpretation does come from life experience, atmospheres, and personal life's goings on, but Science does not explain what art means to some one in the metaphorical, and a philosophic soul level.
Protesting does more harm than good.

First of all I want to point out that you have in no way reacted to my question. What, if protests are as harmful as you claim, would be an alternative? That someone is not happy does not imply they're angry. Protesters can be disappointed, they can be annoyed or just trying to support their ideals. Of course the people in Ferguson are angry, it is after all their equality that's under attack, but anger doesn't always lead to aggression. Or do you always start rioting when you are angry at someone? I still think that you haven't quite grasped the meaning of protesting. Every strike is a peaceful protest and many European countries have them in heaps. Every petition is a protest, many books, pamphlets, some documentaries are protests. If you sum all of them up there are really a lot of peaceful protests all over the world. Even if you exclude those other forms of protests and just focus on demonstrations, there are still a lot of peaceful ones. Because I think this is the protest on your mind when you claim that protests do more harm than good, I'll take a peaceful demonstration in Ferguson as an example. "Citizens protesting the death of black Missouri teenager Michael Brown appeared to be getting along peacefully as they marched alongside state troopers, who took over operational control of the protest scenes Thursday. Several marchers stopped to shake hands with police and troopers. Some people stopped to hug and chat with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Highway Patrol, who was born and grew up near this community and is now overseeing security." (http://www.usatoday.com...) This protest in Ferguson, I believe, is a good example for a peaceful demonstration, or don't you agree? Most violence during protests comes from the side of he police and not from the protesters themselves. In many dictatorial states all over the world protests are suppressed, because they can actually archive something. To forbid protesting is to take away the rights of citizens to publicly make their opinion known. To end the last round, I'd like to once again point out the importance of protests. Without them we would still have child labor, inequality of both sex and race (Martin Luther King and the Suffragettes), monarchies (democratic movements in a lot of European, Asian and African countries), colonies (Gandhi, the Boston Tea Party), dictatorships (USSR, GDR, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.), unfair wages and oppression. Protests do so much more good than they do harm and suppressing them infringes on one of the most basic rights of citizens: The right to express their opinion and to have their voice heard.
Protesting does more harm than good.

Protesting is in no way a way to act out aggression. To clear things up. Here you have the definition of protest as given by Merriam Webster. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary 2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval ; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval 3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action 4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport Only one of those forms of protests requires a mass of people and even then they are in no way defined to be aggressive. And as I have already mentioned: Protesting does not turn people into criminals, people use demonstrations as cover to do illegal things, they already are criminals. I think you misunderstand the concept of protests. A protest is not only, as I have already shown above a public demonstration. Without protests nothing would get done. Protests in England: result: The Magna Carta expense: loss of power for the King (time for the council) and some happy rebel leaders and Englishmen Boston Tea Party: result: American Independence expense: a bunch of tea Solidarnosc (their main "weapon" was civil resistance, which I have already explained): result: fall of the Soviet Union expense: money, because of the strikes and one dictatorial state Monday Protests (they are know for a reason as Peaceful Revolution): result: fall of the GDR (another dictatorship that killed thousands of people) expense: not a single life, linen and paint for the posters and one really long wall Egyptian Revolution: result: downfall of Mubarak (who has been acquitted two days ago, but still lost his power) I admit that this last one is quite different from the others, because when the dictators security forces and protesters lead to 846 deaths, most of those were the protesters themselves (and it was hardly their fault). The revolution still consisted mainly of demonstrations, marches, plaza occupations, non-violent civil resistance, acts of civil disobedience and strikes. Now, let us do a little thought experiment: Imagine you live in a dictatorial surveillance society, just like Eastern Germany and Poland used to be. Without being absolutely compliant and having a lot of friends in high places you can not get into politics, hence you have no way of changing the law. You can not flee the regime, because there is a 12ft high wall and some very trigger happy border patrols stopping you from even thinking about it. Every one of your friends could work for the government and betray you, if you said something against the dictatorship. The police is violent and their prisons feared. Now imagine, what you would do when people start a peaceful demonstration. Stop them? Or join them? What else could you do besides protesting?
Protesting does more harm than good.

Protesting is not a good way to act out aggression. Protesting can turn people into criminals, it is the excuse that they need to do anything they want and most of them will do that. Again there are plenty of ways that you can get your points across without having to protest to get it. That is the only thing that people think of to do when something is done that they don't agree with. If a decision is big enough everybody is going to know about it anyway so protesting to get things heard is just a waste of time. Those protests mentioned above were good ones, but at what expense?
Protesting does more harm than good.

I agree that violent protests do not do any good, but that is no reason to damn protests in general. Violent people are trying find any means to relieve their aggression. They only use protests to do harm which they could not do on their own. It is not the protesters that set cars on fire or steal, it's criminals that basically do what they have always done. The reasons for the protests in Ferguson, though, are valid ones. Inequality can only ever be fought through people standing up and peacefully protesting. The anger of the peaceful protestants is understandable, because of the importance of the matter. Without protesting a defined group of people would have no way of showing their disagreement with the leadership, or legal framework. Protests force the whole of the population and the leaders of a country to notice their dissatisfaction with the current situation. The example of Ferguson shows that the protests created awareness in the general population. And as you have already mentioned the protests are spreading, which I doubt to be a bad thing. You said that nothing good ever comes from people protesting, but ... ...without the protesting in England that lead to the Magna Carta Libertatum, King John never would have had to accept the limitations on his power as Sovereign of England. There would never have been a rebirth of democracy in Europe or even in the at that time undiscovered America after the fall of the first democracy in Greece. " without people pushing boxes at the Boston Tea Party, and thereby protesting against the power of Britain's government over the American Colonies, America would have never become a free state. The Boston Tea Party also lead to the American Revolution and the dawn of a democratic state. And to give some more recent examples: The protests of the Solidarnosc (Solidarity) in Poland lead to the Perestroika (the restructuring of the political and social system), which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Monday Protests in Eastern Germany, also known as the Peaceful Revolution lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall and were another factor that caused the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. A very recent effect of protests was the downfall of the Egyptian dictator Muhammed Mubarak and the establishment of a democracy in Egypt. There are many other examples for successful protests during the Arab Spring. Civil resistance in general, which was wildly used in the examples I have given above is a good example of useful protests. It has been defined as absolutely nonviolent and includes demonstrations, strikes, petitions, boycotts and emigration movements. Without protests the status quo would never be changed. Women would never have gotten the right to vote in Western countries. Black people in America would never have been able to archive equal rights, either.
Protesting does more harm than good.

Thinking of the protesting that is going on right now in Ferguson, this only adds to my point that protesting is harmful. Over one decision the whole nation is in an uproar over this. The protesting is spreading across the nation and seems to be getting worse as it goes. So far that I know of 1 innocent person has been killed due to protesting that has been going on in Ferguson. Protesters will use any means necessary to get their point across. I have heard about them setting cars on fire, burning buildings, smashing windows and even stealing things from stores. All this does is get people arrested and thrown in jail. Nothing good can ever come out of a protest. The decision is already made and nobody cares after that.
Gun control

With history almost always repeating itself, Gun control would not only be against the second amendment that granted you the right to bear arms, It would be a dangerous move that would result in there being more violent crimes in most areas affected by it's jurisdiction. This includes more violent crimes on woman and children. The reason for this has to do with there being a lack of intimidation on criminals who would want to cause harm to innocent bystanders & individuals. A perfect example of this would be in Chicago where in 1982 a handgun ban was set into place with the results being a higher homicide and violent crime rate. For these historical reasons, Any ban on currently legal firearms would not only be taking away the rights of a law abiding citizen to bear arms, But taking the right away from an individual to competently protect himself and his family
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)

I am against the ACA (Obamacare) for the specific reason that what we were promised is not what we received. Everything from Obama's lie of the year : http://www.politifact.com... To the stated goal of the ACA to get all the uninsured into healthcare plans and to stop using emergency room visits, that cost taxpayers more, never happened. http://www.usatoday.com... The ACA did not provide healthcare for all uninsured Americans, it did not let you keep the doctor or the insurance you liked, it did not lower medical costs per family, and it did not lower taxpayer costs so in all areas, the ACA is a horrible failure What should have been passed is medicare for all if the stated goal was National healthcare. What we got instead was higher cost insurance policies partially subsidized by the Federal government and the only true winners being those Multi-National corporations running the insurance policies that are issuing insurance cards but not really providing much actual care.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

Round 5 of the tournament… getting down to it, good luck Derek: Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. Analysis: Under this resolution, there is really two ways to view it, 1) Realistically and 2) Philosophically… In this debate, I will use both (in a weird mesh together) as a tool to prove that it is indeed morally permissible to kill one innocent to save many innocent people. Before beginning with my arguments, let's first look at a few definitions. (from dictionary. com) 1. morally- Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character 2. permissible- allowable Onto my arguments… I. More people live on the pro side. --> It is simple, only one person dying is better than many people dying. When looking at the definition of morally, you have to see that the action of killing someone is ALLOWABLE when you view the saving of the many people that takes place. NOW is when you must view the difference between realism and philosophy…ism? Realistically, moments that this resolution might come into play would be "heat of the moment" times. You must first realize that the person who kills the innocent to save the many innocent KNOWS that he is attempting to save the many innocent people… This alone makes the action ALLOWABLE. It IS a good thing to save many people even if you have to hurt someone else to do it. As far as good "judgment" goes, saving the most people is the right thing to do which goes for both realistically and philosophically. II. More people die on the con side. When you say that it isn't morally permissible to try to save people (which is really what you are doing), you have to see that the many people will end up dying. In other words, more people are killed. III. Example: Train Tracks… If there are 10 people on track A and 1 person on track B and a train is heading on track A, it would be morally permissible to use the switcher to track B to save the many innocent people… --> When you combine these two things, you MUST see that both realistically and philosophically, it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I'll just go paragraph by paragraph with my responses… Off the first paragraph it is simple. Who do you determine to punish, the one person or the group? There is no moral ground as to who to let die (because it's one or the other). However, it is morally PERMISSIBLE to do either of them. It's sort of like the first Spiderman, when the Green Goblin had the group of people and Mary Jane over the bridge. It doesn't matter which one he chose, it was morally permissible and just because he was amazing and saved both doesn't mean that when a real life situation arises that the "actor" will be so lucky. (1)--> Under one, my opponent asks about the numerical value and where I draw the line. My response is that the line is up in the air. The true answer to that question is simple, it is morally PERMISSIBLE to kill one to SAVE one… it is morally PERMISSIBLE to kill one to save two, and three, etc. The fact of the matter is that one of them will die and the other will live. My opponent is right in the fact that there is no moral ground to determine which one to save, but there is an allowed moral ground to which one you choose and the understanding of the community that you may not have been able to save both of them. If someone saved the one, than he would have killed the many. But like in Spiderman, it is not our place to say which is moral but simply that whichever is chosen is permissible. (2)--> Here is where my opponent makes his greatest mistake. He argues that the ends must fit the means… so let us analyze the means for a second. As dictated by the resolution, you are "killing" one to SAVE many. That alone makes the means good. To attempt to save is one of the greatest acts possible. The train example is perfect to prove good means. One person on one track and ten people on the other track. You try to save as many as possible so you switch the train to go down the track with the one person. It is permissible (and good means) to try to save the greatest amount of people. On the transplant example: You're are right (again) in saying that it is not moral that someone would have to choose who dies. But once again, it is permissible in whichever choice is made. My stance is not to say that the greater amount of people is ALWAYS the right way to go, but it IS a morally permissible ground to take. And that alone makes PRO's stance acceptable. In the end: You have a group of people and one person. One of them will survive and the other will die. His end questions seem abusive because he takes away from that idea. There is no moral ground to say you can't live, but you have to say it to one of them. Whichever is chosen is a permissible route and is understandable. I too will end my speech with a few questions. Are you willing to kill a group of people to save one? Is this one person so important that he/she is able to single handedly be put above the rest? My opponent asked me, "What makes the large number of people any better or worthy of life than the one innocent person? "… my answer: I don't know, but whichever is chosen IS morally permissible.
Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations.

first I will rebut my opponents arguments. contention one noting to loose. all nations have something to loose in a war namely solders lives, leaders life, territory, and power. To say any nation has nothing to loose is patently false. contention two irrational people This has nothing to do with dangers from nations because this only individuals causing dangers not a nation as a whole. For a 'nation' to be a threat it needs to be a government sponsored aggression. Otherwise it is just individuals not the nation causing this threat. contention three can't help all I fail to see this as an argument at best it just shows that the U. S. Can't help all countries. now I would like to rebut some specific statements from pro first the u. s. Is not at war with any nations at this time. We do have military operations within some nations but not against any, for example we are fighting terrorists within the borders of Afghanistan. second my opponent cites "the failed state index" (which he did not give us the link to) as having 60 failed nations but what he does not realise is that it does not list any failed nations only those at an alert for becoming failed nations. . http://www.fundforpeace.org... now to my arguments The only failed nations are those that no longer exist such a Rome, Austria-Hungary, soviet union, etc,. my evidence for this is that the failed nation index does not list any failed nations. This would mean that there are no failed nations and something that does not exist can't be threat. If necessary I will have more arguments in my second round. finally a few questions for my opponent How can a failed nation make a coordinated attack? And when has this happened?
Current LD Topic: When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.

The topic in question is: When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security. For this to be proved true or false, we must accept the basic premises of the terms. I have taken the instigator at face value, and will use basic definition of the terms that were used. These are the primary points of the statement as given: 1.We are only discussing conflicts, not preference where both can be partially achieved; 2.Personal freedom, to me is defined as not restraining or dictating the choices and actions of the individual; and 3.Economic security, to me is defined as the ability of a society to trade, produce, and provide for the consumption of the members of that society at the most basic level. The fact remains that he chose the terms and I must use them in evaluation of the merit of the positions. When one starts from the assumption that there is a conflict, or incompatible options, then the argument can be stated with a precise evaluation of the outcomes: 1.The society has no economic stability, but personal freedom is unabridged; or 2.Personal freedom is abridged, and the economy is stable. Were the instigator to have stated economic vitality, economic growth, economic status quo, or some other term I doubt we would have disagreement. He has not. A society that has no economic security cannot provide food, safety, or in essence, life for its members. The sacrifice of an individual's freedom to prevent the wholesale death of the society is logically required, for that individual would also be dead and prevent him from exercising his freedom as well. So we are comparing a total loss to a partial loss and the obviousness of the correct decision need not be further discussed. Here is an example of the debate in action: A man owns a plant that can be made into a cure to prevent the entire society from turning into quadriplegics, himself included, but he doesn't want the plant harmed. Should we take the plant from the man and make the cure? The answer is obvious; yes we deny his personal freedom of property to save the economic security of the society. If the author of this challenge wishes to rephrase the debate or alter his terms, then I may have no disagreement. Many of you may claim that I am being a "semantics Nazi," abusing language to create a straw man. The truth is that he has placed this argument up for debate, and it was he that chose to do so and what language to use. In order to address the concerns of "straw man" semantics trickery, I ask the instigator to provide one example where economic security cannot be achieved without a corresponding denial of personal freedom and where such denial would not be preferable.