BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
hurricane katrina vs superstorm sandy

I did some more research and.........................."Hurricane Sandy had a greater economic impact, destroyed or damaged more units of housing, affected more businesses and caused more customers to lose power" (Cuomo).And yes I do believe that becouse what effects the economy effects more peoplebut overall I submit to the fact that Hurricane Katrina is ranked #1 worst disaster and Superstorm Sandy#2 and just barely worse...Katrina was ranked a level 3 Hurricane and so was Sandy so in terms of being Politcally correct Katrina did win but in terms of being correct in this debate niether of us were becouse Katrina=Sandy when it comes to scale; Katrina just happened to hit more people, whereas Sandy affected the ecomomy(by the way nice to see you didn't give up!) -BurningCrt s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="485" height="364" /> s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="485" height="364" /> s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="485" height="364" />
Determinism

Traditionally, there are four positions within this philosophical line of thinking:Hard determinism- Belief that "for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event" and free will does not exist.Combatibilism- Belief that free will is compatible with determinism and both existHard incombatilism- neither free will nor determinism existsLibertarianism- Belief that free will exists and determinism does not. Definitions from here[1] My position: I will be arguing for hard determinism. My opponent may take any of the other 3 positions. Rules of the debate:1) Be civil, no insults, ad hominem, personal attacks etc2) The number of rounds used for argument should be the total number of rounds you see here minus one.3) The first round used for argument should just be main arguments. No direct rebuttals to your opponent's main arguments are allowed.4) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttal. No new arguments allowed here. New facts and information is allowed, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments. Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Determinism

There is still much to learn from quantum theory; until more research is done, we cannot determine if free will is a definite, but the possibility is there. I'm aware that i'm breaking one of your rules by presenting the following, but I think it is a point that further proves free will's possibility and I've only been aware of the following for a day or so. In light of this perhaps unprofessionalism on my part, the voters decide the outcome, so perhaps they will allow this; sorry, not sorry. The process of mindful meditation has the potential of strengthening our will. "Mindfulness practice enhances freedom by expanding the human capacity for being in the here and now, a state which, arguably, transcends the normal sequence of past/present/future causality. Much of the time, the mind is in a state of undirected flux as it fixes on one object after another in a seemingly random and dissipated fashion. By "cultivating mindfulness", the Dalai Lama reminds us, "we learn first to become aware of this process of dissipation, so that we can gently fine-tune the mind to follow a more directed path towards the objects on which we wish to focus.'" -http://www.academia.edu... Although a being that has complete free will is perhaps impossible, internal free will does exist if you learn to strengthen your subconscious through emotional awareness. This can only be made certain to us if we ourselves put in the effort to explore the possibilities of mindful meditation. I have only begun this process so I remain skeptical, but if inner free will exists, it can only be reached through practice, repetition, and focus, just like any other form of exercise. Through meditation, we can dig into the deepest corners of our mind to discover the roots of our experiences and miseries. Few have the ability to do this, but we all have the potential to, since we are human (aka miracles of the universe!)
Determinism

To answer your question about the pedophile, if someone had all the same experiences and genetics as the pedophile, then the outcome of their lives would be the same; but this would imply that this someone and the pedophile are the same person, since the variation of genetics are unique to the individual, so this someone would not be its own being, but the pedophile himself or a clone. If you were to ask, would two individuals end up with the same psychological state if they had been exposed to the exact same environment and general external conditions/situations? Well, it is certainly possible, but the possibility of this is random, as discovered on the quantum level. "Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved" - http://bigthink.com... The brain is like a muscle; your will power is only as strong as you are able to make it, but we can strengthen it nonetheless. If for example you were to realize how important exercising is for us, then perhaps you would be able to gather the will to start and stick with it. Being healthy and exercising daily is a lifestyle; many people who have been exercising for long enough may frequently have the will to not exercise, but they exercise regardless because they've strengthened their will power to keep exercising despite their desire to take a day off. As technology continues to advance, quantum physics will perhaps reveal much more about reality that we thought would never be possible; And since there is still so much we don't know about our brains and consciousness, who knows what will be revealed in the decades to come. You don't need to believe that a God exists in order for free will to be plausible, you just need to believe that you can change reality if you can change your thoughts. If you can question everything about yourself while being completely honest with yourself and attain control over your emotional stability, then you probably have a strong will.
Determinism

I must begin by saying that I agree with all three of your points. However, I don't think you have presented the adequate reasoning to conclude that free will does not exist entirely. The time delay it takes our brains to process information and then act on it would explain the fact that there may be an extension of activity shown before the feeling of choice because our brains are in the process of deciding how to act before we actually act. I would agree that this process would cause the brain to act independently of our own conscious, but only for individuals who don't have the level of awareness of acknowledging how their conditions and situations have formed their being. By being able to acknowledge and control all the external factors that shape who we are, we can have power over how these externalities effect us internally through expression of our free will. I freely move my arm and body, not because my brain fired up beforehand to make it so, but because of my preconceived choice prior to that moment to stretch and exercise as often as possible to help maintain a healthy body. The reason that many people lack the awareness of free will is because their consciousness was formed by external conditions and situations that ultimately decided how they would perceive these externalities as well as their internal self. The chance that an individual has free will is perhaps equivalent to that of moral luck, but free will requires more than mere morality; free will requires the awareness that takes us beyond the individual self into the reality of the endless potential of the present moment where all thought exists.
let the red states secede

1. There is no socialism in the United States. There is a form of state capitalism in which the government interferes in the economy to insure that the capitalist system runs smoothly. Both Democrats and Republicans frequently use state power to aid economic interests; it is not until their economic interests differ that the word "socialism" starts getting thrown around. Some people seem to think that if the government does one thing that is slightly "socialism" than the whole system is corrupted by socialism and is no considered socialist. This doesn't make any more sense than saying that the USSR should not be considered communist if children are able to freely trade toys without government regulation. The system as a whole needs to be considered. Also, my point that though the "blue states" COULD establish communism, they do not. This implies that they do not want to. 2. The leaders of the "red states" would disagree with my opponent here. The Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations greatly increased the power and reach of the US military. Few people in the "red states" support the "libertarian and paleoconservative ideal of isolationism." 3. Changing from one nation to another sporadically would be a bureaucratic mess. With the complexities of modern government it would simply be impossible. 4. Perhaps my opponent does not realize that I refer to the institutions that have the most resources and consistently produce the most successful individuals. Unless ideology is more important than knowledge and skills, I would consider this a very bad trade-off for "red states." I very much doubt that the nation of Georgia Tech would keep up scientifically with the nation of MIT and Caltech. There would be a huge disparity in resources and quality of education between scientists in the two nations. With that I am running out of room, but I think I am done for now.
let the red states secede

1. The blue states do not wish to establish socialism or communism. If they did, they easily could without the red states succeeding because they more more electoral votes and more seats in both houses of Congress. We already have socialism, in the form of a big government that keeps growing. We dont have real free market or real capitalism, not at all. Furthermore, The fact that they can even establish communism without having to consult us simply makes the argument for separation stronger "2. In order to maintain global power, the United States depends on unity. US elites would not forfeit the nation's sole superpower status to resolve petty political differences" we dont need to be a global power, it is the elite' interest not ours. The red federation will follow the libertarian and paleoconservative ideal of isolationism. There is no reason for us to be the policeman of the world "3. Many states change from red to blue and back each election. It would be unwise to make permanent decisions based on such ephemeral factors" unlike the Union, the red federation will be voluntary. If any state wanna join back to the blue states, they are free to do that "4. The red states would suffer in higher education because most of the top universities" The very same universities that are factories of democrats and liberals? No thank you.
let the red states secede

It seems that my opponent' argument is that the "red states" should succeed so that the rest of the country can establish socialism or communism and everyone will be happy. I see a few problems with this idea. 1. The blue states do not wish to establish socialism or communism. If they did, they easily could without the red states succeeding because they more more electoral votes and more seats in both houses of Congress. 2. In order to maintain global power, the United States depends on unity. US elites would not forfeit the nation's sole superpower status to resolve petty political differences. 3. Many states change from red to blue and back each election. It would be unwise to make permanent decisions based on such ephemeral factors. 4. The red states would suffer in higher education because most of the top universities (including the entire Ivy League) are located in blue states. Successful students from the south would be considered international applicants and would not have the benefits that US citizens receive, including federal financial tuition aid (or socialism as it is better known). There are many other reason but I think this will suffice for now.
let the red states secede

1. So my opponent has conceded that despite his initial argument, the "blue states" are not trying to instate communism. There is a degree of corporatism, but that is practiced by politicians of both parties. Corporatism in the United States is certainly not restricted by any geographic area. 2. A dictionary does not determine the "linguist" definition of a word. That is exactly what I was trying to avoid getting into because these arguments are limited to 2000 characters. Let me try to be brief: When anyone, government or otherwise, tries to assert a definition of a word which must be upheld by others, than that is an exercise of power. Whether or not the definition is "traditional" or not is beyond irrelevant; forcing someone to comply with your beliefs IS authoritarian. What my opponent seems to belief is that if the status quo is authoritarian, it is not authoritarian of social conservatives to uphold the status quo. This is far from true. If two people wish to get married and the State prevents them, that is authoritarian. PERIOD. Power is being exercised, beliefs are being imposed. If social conservationism is the nature state of people when there is no government, why is the government the only thing that limits people from engaging in socially liberal behavior? The answer to that is extremely obvious: because my opponent's excuses are completely nonsensical. 3. This is not changed sides in a way, this is switching between two complex bureaucracies. I've beaten this dead horse enough. It is not logistically feasible for the "red states" to secede given the ephemeral political climate of the United States. 4. My opponent believes that elite universities of the "blue states" (Harvard,Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT, to name a few) do more damage through their "liberal" agenda than they contribute through training and education. Voters can make of this what they wish when considering the "Arguments" vote.
let the red states secede

well, to conclude: 1. It is not capitalism either. May be it is just extreme corporatism, as Ron Paul put it recently. 2. The government has no right to define the world marriage as it is not a function defined by the Constitution whatsoever. Fact: The world marriage has an explicit linguistical definition, over here I have a dictionary, I opened it and it says "social contract between man and woman to become husband and wife". It is no the function of the government to take words and redefine them Social conservationism is not authoritarism simply because social conservatism is the natural state of the people when the government is not trying to social engineer them. In absence of a government, a man and a woman simply go to the Church and marry. Note that it has been the normal human way to do this since the last 2 000 years, after thousands of governments, revolutions, war, in many cases with absolute anarchy, there never was any attempt to redefine the word marriage as something between two men or anything like that, not here, not in China, not in Africa. the point is not if the government is overstepping its power by ALLOWING people to do something, it is WHY the government should have the power to allow it or disallow it AT ALL 3. Impossible? No. Just like prussia changed sides many times during the Napoleonic wars, and Ukraine changed sides many times during the russian civil war of 1917-1921, it is not impossible by definition. Now of course that it will be a little messy,may be, but eventually the state will see what side fits it better. It is a necessary step they will eventually have to take anyways, as blue states go more and more to the Left. I see it as unavoidable 4. I think it is worthy in the long term. as final conclusion, I would say that the positive results (abiity to keep a true social conservatist without the government trying to social engineer us, companies moving to our side) overwhelm any cost
let the red states secede

1. None of these points constitute actual communism or socialism of any kind. There is no command economy. Even the most cursory understanding of what communism or socialism actually are will easily elucidate the fact that the "blue" states have not established and do not seek to establish either of these systems. 2. This point shows such ignorance of the very concept of power that I don't know how to begin to address it. The government would not be allegedly exercising power by "changing" the definition of marriage. The "definition" of anything is not determined linguistically by the State. Instead, the government is exercising power by forcing people to conform to a certain definition. My opponent asserts "the traditional definition of marriage by definition is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife." Who creates that definition? Is it the right of a "small government" to uphold that definition? No, conservatives have no interest in small government. Authoritarianism (and that is what social conservationism is) is inherently incompatible with small government. The phrase "small government" is just being twisted to mean anything. I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the government is overstepping its power by ALLOWING people to do something. 3. My opponent is dodging the main root of this argument, which is that it is impossible for states to switch between two countries effectively. Many of the states are not clearly "red" or "blue" and would have nowhere to go. There would be no long term stability because many states would keep seceding and seceding back constantly or they would have nowhere to go. 4. Dodging the point about the fact that "blue state" universities offer an objectively better education and better pre-professional training. I am not talking about public education at all. I am talking about private, post-secondary education. The "red states" clearly suffer as a result of this.
let the red states secede

1. Are you for real? I mean, really... bailouts, net neutrality, the lawsuit of 2001 against Microsoft, greedy unions of state workers like the one of teachers of Illinois calling for a 50% increase of income tax, etc, etc. The truth is that the government has obstructed the natural flow of capitalism of much that corporations are fleeing USA and outsourcing and shipping production to china 2. I dont see why you would think that social conservatism is mutually exclusive with small government. Issues of marriage and abortion will have to be discussed apart, one by one. Note that the traditional definition of marriage by definition is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, the government trying to redefine what is marriage IS governamental interventionism, the function of the government is NOT to define what is marriage whatsoever, and if it tried to, it is abusing its power. Now, the republican party has always been isolationism, at least before the neocon take over. For the record, it was the democratic party that took us to WW I, WW II, Vietnam, Korea, etc, etc. 3. the short term instability will be greatly balanced by long term stability. As the blue states go further to the Left, and their open borders policy leads to social and ethnic struggle, the red states will remain fairly homogeneous, and, even if slighty poorer, the quality of life will probably remain the same, with the plus that the violence in the blue states will be kept at the other side of the border 4. well, I think it is our right if we wanna "indoctrinate" our youth. Kansas is already teaching Creationism in the schools. Blue states have no right to tell us what is best for our children, specially the amounts of violence and juvenile gangs that they have
let the red states secede

1. There is such a thing as state capitalism. I really don't think anyone would accept such a ridiculous claim as that state capitalism is an oxymoron and therefore doesn't exist. If I think "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, does that mean I can use that as an argument that it doesn't exist? Certainly not. In the US state capitalism very watered down to the point of being almost pure capitalism, but even this is enough to whip up anti-socialist fervor it seems. 2. Yes, this is my exact argument. The leaders of the red states do not wish for them to secede. In any case, I find it very ironic that the alleged party of small government also supports foreign wars and domestic intervention in such petty things as which individuals can get married. The people of the "red states" have no interest in small government, they have interests in advancing their views and use the "small government" argument where appropriate. 3. Many of the States during the Civil War, especially Tennessee, were in a constant state of internal Civil War over whether to secede. Getting a sufficiently uniform agreement on secession would be impossible, especially today. 4. I apologize if I don't have the maturity to see that universities are run by Marxists. None of the professors I ever met were Marxist despite the fact that institutions of higher education do tend to lean to the left. If the "red states" would rather have their youth well indoctrinated with local beliefs and uneducated in both knowledge and practical skills, then I suppose universities will be of no use to them. But I doubt this will help social or economic progress. I assure you the goal of creating conservative universities is not an achievable one. The idea that you will be able to assemble a large number of intellectuals and talented youth in one area with an abundance of information to study and not produce radical new ideas is rather absurd. Education is by nature a liberalizing process.
let the red states secede

1. Sorry, but "state capitalism" is an oxymoron 2. People voting republican think there voting for small government. Sorrowly, the elite of the republican party is under the control of the neocons, military complex and the great corporations. it will have to change eventually, I hope, otherwise the neocons are not going to allow the secession to happen 3. I think this kind of territorial changes would be rare once the countries are consolidate, there could be some instabiliity at the beginning of the separation though, with states changing of country, reforming and splitting, until reaching a balance. remember the confederation of 1861 did not start out of sudden, the other states were joining one by one to South Carolina, some of the pro-slavery state evaluated the situation and decided to remain in the Union, other were deeply divided, and one state, Virgina, split. 4. The universities has been taken over by liberals, which, i think, neutralize any benefit that they could have. It does not matter if we get thousands of new professionals if he cost is that they will become marxists that will bring instability to the new nation and bring us to square one once more. The whole seperation thing will be pointless is we let our youth to be converted to marxism. and please dont say that most university professors are not marxist, and think we are mature enough to recognize that the universities are biased to the left. I really think that the new states will need to create its own conservative universities at the end, if we really wanna keep our new nation healthy and prevent another cultural revolution like the one of the 1960s that by the way, started in the Universities