BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

Debate Rules & Regulations 1)You may include as many sources as you want, or no sources if you wish. 2)All source citation types and sources will be accepted. 3)The winner will be decided by an "Open Voting" style taking place over the course of a month after the debate is completed. 4)Failure to post an argument in 48 hours will not result in automatic disqualification although voters are encouraged to vote for a debater who does in fact post an valid argument for each and every round. I believe that democracy is not an efficient way to govern a nation. The order and purpose of the five debate rounds are as following: 1) Challenge & Acceptance 2) Why or why not democracy is the most efficient and practical way to govern a nation. 3) Examples (Real and Hypothetical) of what can happen in a democracy and other forms of government. 4) What the best for, of government is or would be.
The earth is spherical in shape.

I posit that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a spherical and spinning earth. I intend to show, with the scientific method and everyday observation, that the earth is flat. The opponent wishes to limit the arguments to 2, so I'll try to pick the best arguments. 1. All bodies of water are measurably flat. Since a majority of the surface of the earth as we know it is water, we can safely deduce that the earth is flat. Or not spherical. Anyone can test this. Find a body of water that is at least one mile across and measure it. This test is currently being performed all over the plane. From 6 miles: . https://youtu.be... . https://youtu.be... 12 miles: . https://youtu.be... 30 miles . https://youtu.be... 57 miles . https://youtu.be... Even 160 miles away: Water has been found to be flat. This is a direct contradiction to the mathematics of the conclusion, and the earth couldn't possibly be a ball. 2. Motion of the earth. To have a workable model, you must have a means of falsifiability. To say that the earth is spinning, wobbling, tilted back at 66.6" axis, orbiting the sun at 66,600 miles per hour, as it follows the sun around the universe, which is in turn going around "the great attractor" at some 800 miles per second is an astounding claim, and has never been demonstrably proved. Many experiments trying to prove the earth's motion have failed miserably. An easy way to falsify this claim is with a simple gyroscope. Gyroscopes maintain "rigidity in space" because they resist a force that would cause it to change orientation. Foucault claims to have demonstrated that the gyroscope resists the force of the earth's motions: . http://adsabs.harvard.edu... But I can't seem to find a demonstration anywhere. So it is so far, an assumption. "Rigidity in space: the gyro has a tendency to resist forces applied to it, it is stable on the axis it spins. This is the principle behind which a spinning top stays upright, and the incorporation of gyroscopes in flight instrument have resulted in instruments like the artificial horizon which by maintaining rigidity in space allow for flight solely by reference to the instruments. " . http://www.txsquadron.com... When reproduced, the experiment produces nil results. . https://youtu.be... If Foucault invented a crude gyroscope that long ago, and it resisted the earth's motion, why can't we reproduce these results today, after all the advancements in every field? This is a direct contradiction of one of the heliocentric model's main tenants, the motion of the earth. Which means that the two tenants, curvature and motion have been refuted using the scientific method. I await your response.
The earth is spherical in shape.

A similar debate was already posted and accepted, but I don't think it's going to have the depth I was looking for. Repost. Must have completed at least 5 debates before it is possible to accept this debate. Please read the rules. --Summary-- I'm looking for a serious debate on this topic, so trolls need not apply. We'll be shooting for an evidence-based inquiry into the shape of our planet. In the past, I've seen that it can be trying to find the time (or in this case, space) to present all possible arguments on the issue, so we're going to be doing a "best two" format here. See below. --Rules-- 1. This is a "Best Two", traditional format. "Best Two" indicates that both sides will be presenting at most two arguments for their position. (Ideally, the "best two" arguments for your position.) When your position is critiqued it is sometimes necessary to bring in more evidence or explain a related phenomenon. This is fine -- just ensure that your entire argument can be largely separated into no more than two points. 2. Burden of Proof is shared. Regardless of how "silly" this topic is interpreted by most people, both the claim "The world is flat," and the claim "The world is round," are positive claims and so both sides have a burden to prove their claims. Voters are instructed to choose the winner based upon whichever debater presents a more compelling set of arguments (or argument). 3. Semantics arguments need not apply. While arguments based on semantics are important in some areas, particularly philosophy, this is a science-based discussion and arguments which rest entirely upon "defining ones way to victory" are not allowed here. It is difficult to define exactly what one of these arguments looks like, but when you see one, you know what it is. 4. 10k character limit. A debater should post a minimum of 4,000 characters in rounds 2-4. The purpose of this is to ensure that both debaters are actively involved in the conversation. --Round Structure-- R1: Intro / Con Opening Arguments R2-4: Normal Debate R5: Wrap It Up. The only important thing to note here is that Con will be leading with their opening arguments in their acceptance. No reason to waste space or time with a purely introductory round. --Last Minute Clarifications-- Even though I said that no semantics based arguments should be made, I will clarify this anyway. When I say "The earth is a sphere," I mean "The planet on which we live is spheroid in shape." Thanks in advance to my opponent. Let's have fun!
In relation to video games, it is wrong to tag people as a "nerd" by what game they play.

For this debate I would like to know exactly what you mean when you say, "it is wrong to tag people as 'nerd' by what game they play." I do not know if you mean just judging the person with your thoughts and words or literally tagging them online as a nerd. In my opinion some could say that people are not only judged by the games they play and called nerds, but games are judged by the people who play them and the games could be known as nerdy games. UrbanDictionary.com gives their own definition of a game nerd. Here is a part of it: "A person who plays video games A LOT." Now I do not know about you, but if someone told me I was someone who played video games a lot, I do not know if I would be that offended. Now going back to what I said earlier about how I think that some games are judged by the people that play them. If lots of people play a certain video game a lot, they could be considered "game nerds" from the definition we got of a game nerd from UrbanDictionary.com. Not only are the people being tagged as game nerds, but the game (since it is is popular), is being known as a "nerdy game". Using the examples of the games you gave me earlier that you said were "usually considered as the 'nerd games'", I would like to point out how these are pretty popular games (World of Warcraft, Runescape, Dungeons and Dragons). Now since these are popular games and people play them a lot, they are considered nerd games and the people who play them a lot are considered "game nerds" from the previous definition. Therefore not only are these people considered "game nerds", but could also be considered "nerds" from other gamers and people who know that those games are popular. Thank you for listening to my arguments. :)
In relation to video games, it is wrong to tag people as a "nerd" by what game they play.

Good Luck, I quote: "you are submitting yourself to anything that people may want to say to you or about you during, before, or even after the gameplay. " As I understand it, you are stating that by playing video games, you are subjecting yourself to these rude comments. However, with this statement you are neither proving your position nor disproving mine. Just because you are subjecting yourself to these comments by playing video games does not mean someone is justified in tagging you as a "nerd" or "dork". I quote: "and I do not think that is right to say, but hey! America is a free country. " By saying you do not think it is right to say (correct me if I'm wrong), you proved my point in which these tags and names are wrong. Examples I'm going to list out a few games as examples: · World of Warcraft · Runescape · Dungeons and Dragons These games are usually referred to as the “nerd games”. However, if you look at the generic definition of “nerd”, and the contents of the game itself, the opinion should change dramatically. “Nerd is a term that refers to an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit. ” (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) At this point I’d like to link you a video of someone who spends his time playing the game World of Warcraft: . http://www.youtube.com... I apologize for any inappropriate words said during the video. (Video up top) Referring to the generic definition of a nerd, people usually describe them as non-social. However, if you listen to what the man in the video talks about, he describes a “fantasy world” in which players have fun together and have a social experience. These same concepts also go for a vast majority of video games. “Title” of the game I put the word title in quotation marks because I’m referring to it as the tag the game itself has. This tag is the typical person’s outlook on the game itself: “Someone who plays (tagged video game) is clearly a nerd because they spend so much time playing it”. The example I provided is one of the main comments I hear all the time when talking about these types of games. However, what they fail to realize is that they are being extremely hypocritical by saying so. For example: If I play CoD Black Ops hours on end, and begin talking about how someone who plays Runescape hours on end is a nerd, you are contradicting yourself. The person that play’s CoD Black Ops plays the exact same amount of game time as the person who plays Runescape does, so how does that make the Runescape player a nerd and not the CoD player? It’s because of the “title” the typical person give the game, which is morally wrong. ******* Thank you for taking time to participate in this debate.
In relation to video games, it is wrong to tag people as a "nerd" by what game they play.

For this debate I would like to clarify the points I will be making. 1. When you play video games of any sort you are submitting yourself to anything that people may want to say to you or about you during, before, or even after the gameplay.2. People have their own opinions. It may not be the nicest thing to judge someone upon the game they play and call them a "dork", and I do not think that is right to say, but hey! America is a free country. 3. If people are mean to you that doesn't mean you should be mean back. I'm not saying that you can't be mean back, but try being the bigger person. Maybe they will learn to not treat other people in a bad way if they see how even though they may be being rude to you, you are still kind back. Thank you for debating. I look forward to see your next argument.
Racial Profiling

First off - I hope you know my first "debate" was half joking. It's not stupid. I just wanted to be silly for my first debate with my brother! Anyway, I agree with you completely. I guess when I think of "racial profiling" I think of "driving while black." The a--hole cop who has nothing better to do than pull young black men over on the side of the NJ turnpike for kicks. I think random checks at airports is stupid. But I believe if law enforcement is going to do their job they need to take MORE than race into account and just can't use that as the one reason to question someone. How many innocent Americans of middle eastern descent were detained after 911 without a trial just because they had the same name as a terrorist or knew someone with a similar name etc. There has to be some kind of review process in case a complaint comes forward against law enforcement that we can determine "yes it was normal law enforcement profiling to include race as a factor" or "no this guy was on a power trip and must be penalized." Both occur. I'm assuming the first more than the last, but we can't ignore the fact there are a small minority of racist cops and they must be held accountable and this type of injustice shouldn't be swept under the rug. There I go playing devil's advocate. I agree with you, but there's always two sides. One reason our country has become so letigious is because there have been situations where people were falsely accused, law enforcement has abused its power, etc. The more things people do wrong, the more laws we feel should be put in place to combat those injustices. Sometimes the more laws there are the harder it is to get anything done (case in point Congress). Which leads us to your argument, law enforcement feeling like it can't truly do it's job. So yeah, I pretty much agree with you, but I see how it's become an issue. Does any of that make sense? ps - Isn't it cool that we only disagree on 8% of the things they listed? However, the way they described each issue was kind of narrow and doesn't take into the account the complexity of each issue. I guess that's where the debate comes in.
The universe didn't have a beginning and it won't have an end either.

OK, you can start by giving me the starting date of the universe. That's the exact date that it started and the exact date that it will end. lol. If you can't answer this question, then that proves that you don't know and that you are just going to try to bluff me with a whole bunch of religious nonsense or scientific fraudulence. You must justify the date using logic or evidence.
Determinism as a real thing

I completely agree with my opponent's assessment that neither of us can give a definitive answer; definitive proof simply doesn't exist in science. And it is also true that having a debate on the subject isn't the best way to reach the truth. All of what my opponent has said regarding this is true; however at the end of the day, this is just a debate, and we should treat it as such. In a debate, the goal is to win by fulfilling your burden of proof and showing that your opponent has not met their's, which is exactly what I have done. In other words, I decline Con's offer to end this in a draw, and will instead refute the minimal argumentation provided by Con in his final round. .. Con drops all his counter-examples, instead turning fully to attacking my affirmative case. He re-iterates his appeal to the fallibility of human perception/cognition without really addressing my response from last round, so I can just extend my original response. He also brings up the claim that I must show beyond a doubt that every event that occurs in reality is deterministic in nature. .. however, as I've already explained, I don't need to do that because I have already shown why the evidence behind it (all of human experience, innumerable scientific studies, philosophical soundness, etc. ) is enough for us to assume that determinism applies throughout the universe and on all levels of reality. With my BOP fulfilled, the onus was then on Con to provide sufficient reason for us to reject determinism; however, he has dropped all his counter-examples. .. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.
Determinism as a real thing

Pro must still prove that determinism is real. Since determinism implies that absolutely everything is determined, Pro must prove that ALL events are so. So intuition or daily examples are not valid arguments. The work of reason is to find explanation to things (and thus patterns). That"s why we fail and commit Apophenia many times. We are reaching a field in science which is very complex to understand and it is natural for us to deny something that doesn"t make much sense, but that doesn"t make it false. I"m not even saying your position is false, I"m not saying mine is true. I have come to a conclusion, through meditation. I took into consideration both sides and yet I see Pro just assumes through fallacy of induction (and unproven interpretations, just as I am) that determinism is true. I"m making a point here, which is, none of us both can give a definitive answer at the moment. All we have are intrepretations, theories and assumptions. I thank Pro for giving me some alternatives to non-determinism, it has helped me amplify my range of ideas. I have given many reasons and Pro has also given some reasons too, but I don"t see any more than pointless reasons based on yet unstable bases. I propose a Draw, to be able to escape from the failure of winning or losing a pointless debate. We both had reasons yet none of them were absolute, so we cannot reach a true answer. Assuming any position without full evidence would be an error. My position in "Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth" is becoming verified http://www.debate.org... The way to reach truth it"s not to defend a position, but to deny confrontation and to study the topic with skepticism, that is, getting out of the debate.
Determinism as a real thing

I"ll start by answering each paragraph one by one: 1st paragraph: Occam "s razor is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. Here you have a discussion about the validity of Occam"s razor in a physics forum which I find interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net... Still we can say the same about the many worlds and Bohman interpretation, quantum mechanics is still a work in progress, there will be many on one side and the other. We are programed to see patterns in the world, and that"s why determinism works so well for us, but the fact that we may see apparent patterns, doesn"t mean they are actually there. This happens very often and its most commonly experienced by seeing faces were there aren"t any, this phenomenon is called Pareidolia. http://en.wikipedia.org... The most generic term that would also include our topic is called Apophenia, the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, our brain doesn"t help us accept that things aren't easily predictable and that we do in fact often predict this things incorrectly. This can also happen to things that cannot be deduced because of this randomness. This is called Hindsight bias, or the knew-it-all-along effect. http://en.wikipedia.org... All these effects (and other cognitive biases) often lead us to think incorrectly, in this case, seeing patterns were there are no patterns and literally unconsciously distorting your own memory to believe you knew things before happening (Making them seem possible to deduce from the past). Most philosophy thoughts come from thinking that gets some influence from experience, and in experience we see events determining other events, and other events we just remember them in a distorted version. But some events being determined doesn"t negate the fact that randomness exists as part of the essential nature of things. Maybe it"s time for philosophy to take a step forward and get even more abstract. As Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead". In my opinion, it"s just agonizing because it needs to breathe new, yet unused air. 2nd paragraph: This set of values you identify as "Theoretical construct and purely abstract" can exist as information in a computer. We can acquire "pure information" through a process called "Data Compression", removing redundancies in data. This "pure information" is completely random. Now let"s look at the next reason for determinism not being real (Following the video "What is not Random?"): Entropy may be our answer. Entropy is a fact, it"s part of the laws of thermodynamics, and a measure of disorder. As you can deduce from my previous arguments, order is required to make determinism a valid position. The entropy of the universe is increasing, that translates into more randomness, disorder (aka less determination). Where may this growth of chaos come from? Quantum mechanics. But let"s just leave it there, for now.
Determinism as a real thing

Thanks, Con. I will start by offering my own case affirming the resolution. Everything, and I do mean *everything*, in human experience up until this point has gone to support the conclusion that determinism is true. Our metaphysical intuitions have even been shaped by our experiences to the point that we are unable to coherently envision an event happening without cause. Not only that, but determinism is philosophically supported as well; it makes logical sense that all events have an antecedent event causing it. Therefore, it is only reasonable to believe that determinism holds true throughout the universe, unless we are given sufficient reason to believe otherwise. However, it is Con's burden to provide that "reason", which is exactly what he has attempted to do in his opening argument. On to rebuttals... Con cites a concept from quantum mechanics called Schrodinger's Cat, attempting to show that some things happen completely randomly and without cause. However, this relies wholly on the validity of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which specifically describes the strange properties of quantum particles as inexplicable and probabilistic. However, quantum physics is a work in progress, and we have not yet fully understood it; there are several other, newer interpretations that have been gaining recognition recently such as the Many Worlds interpretation [1] and the Bohmian interpretation [2], which are experimentally equivalent to other interpretations, yet explain quantum effects in ways that still abide by determinism. Interpretations such as these are actually favored over the Copenhagen interpretation by Occam's Razor, as they are much simpler, have greater explanatory power, and do not go against the rules that govern the rest of reality. In order for us to accept Con's claim that quantum mechanics refutes determinism, he would have to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is exclusively true. Con goes on to claim that the fact that we can make a list of numbers which follows no particular pattern refutes determinism... this makes absolutely no sense. Numbers are a purely abstract and theoretical construct; just because we make a list of numbers doesn't mean that they actually exist in reality. To refute determinism, Con must show that there are actually-existent things which do not follow any sort of deterministic pattern. In conclusion, determinism is the most reasonable conclusion we can draw from the available evidence, and neither of Con's counter-examples actually serve as sufficient reasons for us to reject it. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...