BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justifed.

I accept my opponent's definitions except for affirmative action and will begin with my definitions and rebuttals. Definition: Discrimination - a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category. I use the Wikipedia definition of discrimination as I believe that it outlines the practice best, . http://en.wikipedia.org... Affirmative Action - an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Contention 1: AFF ACTION CONTINUES TO PROMOTE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/// This is a direct portion of this document here [1], not a real argument. Until my opponent supports this contention with an actual argument the voters should consider it invalid. I am not in a debate with Reginald T. Shuford, I am in a debate with Datodd39. ~ ///In the four decades since Johnson's time, affirmative action has increased opportunities for many people to realize that dream through education and employment. .. /// This is another direct quote, not an argument [2]. ~ ~~~~~~~~~ My Argument ~~~~~~~~~ In the resolution my opponent claims that affirmative action promotes equal opportunity. This statement is in direct conflict with my opponent's definition of equal opportunity which is why I do not accept my opponent's definition of affirmative action. You see, affirmative action is in and of itself discrimination, instead of encouraging people to look past race, gender, creed, ect. it forces us to take these factors into account. It is a logical fallacy to try and end discrimination with discrimination. The resolution is negated. [1] Pages 23-24 of the PDF file, or pages 525-526 of the actual document, . http://law.campbell.edu... [2] Tenth paragraph, . http://www.populist.com...
God Is Nothing More Than An Emotional Construct

I urge voters to read and judge the debate based on the arguments given during the two rounds that my opponent and I interacted. Essentially I've argued that God's ontology is independent of any emotional construct created, and I've demonstrated proposing an argument for God's existence that's independent of an emotional construct. I've attempted to show that Pro has participated in committing the genetic fallacy and that his objection to premise 1 of the Kalam is logically fallacious and unsubstantial.
God Is Nothing More Than An Emotional Construct

I didn’t have enough space to address one of BlueGalaxy’s points last round, but since my opponent forfeited this round, I have more than enough room to address it. My opponent responds to my burger analogy by saying, “an infinity cannot be contained inside of two definite finitudes. That isn't a veritable infinity, just a vast finitism, so in theory you would eventually get the burger.” I’d also like to utilize the argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite as an extension to my analogy. (1) an actual infinite cannot exist (2) an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite (3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist The first premise refers to the fact that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real, spatio-temporal world. [1] My analogy serves to highlight this first premise, which my opponent seeks to deny. His denial, however, makes no sense whatsoever. His first sentence makes sense and I am in agreement with him. If I understand him correctly, an infinity cannot be placed within a finitude. However the claim that I’ve postulated a “vast finitism” is a mischaracterization of my view. I am NOT postulating a vast finitude. I meant infinity to mean exactly what it is; never ending. I’m going on the assumption that it is an infinity so I can highlight the absurdity of having a real infinite in our world. So as I conculded before, I will never get my burger after an infinite amount of flips. Furthermore, the analogy highlights premise 2 as well (if it's not already obvious). Essentially, in order to get the burger you must traverse the infinite amount of flips, which would be implying what's said in premise 2 of the argument: an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. So how does this analogy apply to the second premise of the Kalam? Simple: If the universe was infinite, then that would mean an actual infinite would exist. However, it's been shown an actual infinite cannot exist. All other arguments extended Sources [1] Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig. Creation out of nothing: a biblical, philosophical, and scientific exploration. Leicester, England: Apollos ;, 2004. Print.
Medicines Should Be Made Free

Con says there can be no improvement in medicines without the public paying for them.Of course,there can be improvement in medicines and medicines can still be produced WITHOUT the pubic paying for them.('them' referring to medicines) The hospitals can increase the treatment cost and supply the medicines for free and give the increased amount to the pharmaceutical companies,which in turn makes sure that these companies make new medicines. I would like to remind Con that this debate is just about medicines being made free;not the treatment costs and medication. I would like to sum up on what I had said earlier 1. Companies and hospitals can mint money and are making a lot of money even after giving medicines for free. 2.Basic medicines like the ones we take for fever, pain and cold should be given away for free to all the sections of society. 3.Medicines are are absolute necessity and should be given free of cost. Hence medicines should be made free.
Medicines Should Be Made Free

Medicines are and continue to be one of the most important necessities(next to oxygen,food and water,clothing and shelter). Everyone has the right to get good quality medicines.If a poor man is sick,he cannot remain sick.He has to be treated.So,this man should have the right to avail medicines free of cost.Now,the Contender might argue that there is no thing as"free lunch". But, we still do get good quality medicines free of cost.Also,it is the governments duty to give medicines free of cost as it is an absolute necessity. Here is a list of hospitals (in Chennai) that provide medicines free of cost and still mint money. 1. Hindu Mission Hospital The hospital"s services include projects such as "Narayana Seva", "Bhakta Jana Seva", "Annalakshmi", the Free Artificial Limb Centre and the Kidney Care Endowment. These free intensive camps are regularly conducted in rural areas on different days of the week. The hospital also provides treatment and medications at free of cost. 2. AMS Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital This hospital conducts free camps twice a month, providing diagnosis and treatment facilities, vaccines for women and children. Also, outreach vans are sent out to slums to provide treatment at the doorstep. This hospital also facilitates delivery and caesarian operations for poor women free of cost. It also conducts eye camps free of cost and underprivileged patients can avail free services for in-patient treatment! 3. Adyar Cancer Institute Founded in 1954 by Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy, the Adyar Cancer Institute is a top ranking cancer institute in India according to the World Health Department (WHO). It was the first institute in India which received the Cobalt-60 Therapy Unit for cancer treatment. The hospital provides free treatment to the financially poor segment of the society which makes up to around 63% of the patients. 4. Shri ISARI Velan Mission Hospital This hospital provides people with free vaccination for life threatening diseases and other services for the economically marginal sections of the society. 5. Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Hospital for Women and Children This hospital, exclusively for women and children provides free dental, eye care, and pediatric services free of cost to the disadvantaged sections of the society. 6. Government Royapettah Hospital One among the most popular hospitals in Chennai, the Government Royapettah hospital provides treatment for accidents, emergencies, burns, cardiology, ENT, and general medicine free of cost for the poor. 7. Southern Railway Hospital The hospital was originally intended to be a hospital for railway employees alone but now it treats the general public as well. Founded in 1928, the hospital provides treatment at affordable costs and HIV treatment and medicines are absolutely free of cost. Sources: http://www.urbantree.in... Hence,I believe that medicines should not be made free of cost.
Medicines Should Be Made Free

1. IntroductionIn today’s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as “diseases”, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is “Medicines Should Be Made Free”, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as “should” is a synonym for ‘duty’ or ’ absolute necessity’, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not "absolute necessity” and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that "medicines should be given free" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply “crazy”; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the “Pharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits”. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can’t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying "There is nothing called free lunch!!"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...
Medicines Should Be Made Free

The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.
Dubstep music battle.

My opponent forfeited his last round, and put up no songs in the last round. Therefore, he has lost because he was unable to come up with anything to top what I've posted. What a disappointment... Here are five more fantastic dubstep songs anyway, for your enjoyment: (1) Hypnocat - Ethereal http://www.youtube.com... (2) Gemini - No Way Out http://www.youtube.com... (3) Example - 'Midnight Run' http://www.youtube.com... (4) The Glitch Mob - Fortune Days http://www.youtube.com... (5) The Streets - In The Middle (Nero Remix) http://www.youtube.com...
Dubstep music battle.

(1) Blackmill - The Drift http://www.youtube.com... (2) Nero - Departure http://www.youtube.com... (3) The Glitch Mob - We Can Make The World Stop http://www.youtube.com... (4) Lindsey Stirling-Transcendence http://www.youtube.com... (5) Digitalism - Miami Showdown http://www.youtube.com...
Dubstep music battle.

(1) Gemini - Blue http://www.youtube.com... (2) Nero - Reaching Out http://www.youtube.com... (3) Blackmill - Spirit Of Life http://www.youtube.com... (4) Ghosts N Stuff - Deadmau5 Nero Remix (I know it's been around a while, but it had to be in here. It's spot is well earned) http://www.youtube.com... (5) Gemini - Graduation (That ethereal blitz. Just wait for the beat to drop.) http://www.youtube.com...
Dubstep music battle.

1. Bangarang (feat. Sirah) - SKRILLEX 2. Promises - Nero - SKRILLEX 3. Hard In Da Paint - Waka Flocka Flame - Crizzly 4. Chain Hang Low - Jibbs - Crizzly & AFK 5. Scary monsters and nice sprites - SKRILLEX MY FAVORITES ARE NUMBERS 1 AND 5. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Dubstep music battle.

(1) Modestep- Show Me A Sign http://www.youtube.com... (2) Above & Beyond - On My Way To Heaven (feat. Richard Bedford) http://www.youtube.com... (3) Blind Faith ft. Liam Bailey - Chase and Status (No More Idols) http://www.youtube.com... (4) Flinch - Light It Up http://www.youtube.com... (5) Nero - Me And You - Full Official Video (MTA Records) http://www.youtube.com...
Dubstep music battle.

Rds. 2-5 for dubstep awesomeness. Instructions: Each debater may post up to five songs/music videos of the dubstep genre. Debaters must type the name of the song, artist, DJ, etc. so that in the event that the song is removed from Youtube, judges may be able to find an equivalent video on their own. Voting is to be based on how awesome the songs selected are. Obviously subjective, but whateves. Debaters are not to be held responsible if posted videos are removed from Youtube.
The Baptist church, just another religious entity teaching false doctrine.

Happy to take on part of this challenge. I used to be a Baptist and would still consider myself more Baptist than anything but I don't believe any denomination is 100% correct so I will happily research your denomination and show you some of their errors. The church of Christ believe salvation requires baptism, The thief on the cross was not baptizes and still went to heaven. By adding an action to the requirements for salvation you take away from what Jesus did for you on the cross. Adding or taking away from salvation puts you in danger of judgment. They also don't believe in sinful nature, for example an individual who never sinned does not require salvation or Jesus. That is not what the Bible teaches. Even the best of people are corrupted by sin from birth and need salvation. What have you to say about Baptists?
Violent videogames cause violence in players

If you didn't already know you are arguing as pro, not con or apathetic. On to the debate then. 97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. . http://www.pewinternet.org... . http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.
Violent videogames cause violence in players

greetings, video games does not cause permanent violence.video games are there for your entertainment and to take money out of your wallet.Take the grand theft auto game series, in the game you could go around and mow down civilians with a truck, but that is YOUR decision.The game doesnt tell you to do that,you do it on your own.Studies have shown that certain violent video games actually causes a calm effect.it just depends what kind of person you are and how you were raised. i look forward you your response
Violent videogames cause violence in players

The debate shall go as follows. Round one-Acceptance Round two-Main argument(s) Round three-Rebuttals/supporting arguments Round four-Rebuttals and conclusion-no new arguments When I say violence I do not mean "a temporary increase in aggression" changes should be permanent and significant. Evidence is required but logic is accepted where appropriate. Burden of proof is on pro (my competitor) for reasons that should be obvious. No freaking out-its the internet control yourself. I look forward to debating and hope my competitor provides an interesting argument.
A Rolling Stone gathers no moss

Therefore, whoever made up the proverb "a rolling Stone gathers no Moss" was clearly talking out of their arse – and was probably the same halfwit that thought up the idioms "you can't have your cake and eat it"; "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse"; "a watched pot never boils" and "what you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts". Thank you.
A Rolling Stone gathers no moss

I thank my esteemed opponent for yet another excellent and witty round. I managed to overlook Kate Moss's relationship with Ronnie Wood when putting this debate together, and can only blame this oversight on incomplete research. Of course, Kate and Ronnie have a history; there's no denying that they have been friends. Kate does not fit the proverb, though, as I will demonstrate. First, although she may be called moss, she does not seem to exhibit any of the characteristics of moss: -She is not tiny, by most human standards, nor are her stems leafy - at least, as far as we know. -No-one has ever accused her of being a sporogenous plant; will my opponent be the first? - And, although she may be seen in company with "tufts, sods, and matts," she cannot be said to have grown from them. Second, while she has been friends with Ronnie, Ronnie was not the man who ended up gathering her; she married Jamie Hince instead. Hince gathered Moss; Wood did not. Finally, and most telling, Ronnie didn't even attend the wedding. None of the Rolling Stones did, although Moss sent them all invitations. (Though if they had, it would have been an example of Moss gathering Rolling Stones, which is an ENTIRELY different proverb! ) In the article my opponent linked, Ronnie explained his absence by saying he has stopped hanging out with Moss because he is trying to stay sober. This is an example of the proverb, if anything; you can read it for yourself. A Rolling Stone gathers no Moss - whether Moss is moss or simply Moss. . http://www.examiner.com...http://www.examiner.com...So, to recap:The Rolling Stones do not gather moss (plants). (Kate) Moss is not moss, but Moss. (Kate) Moss tried to gather the Rolling Stones, but failed. Ronnie Wood, one of the Rolling Stones, no longer gathers with (Kate) Moss. And Jamie Hince, not one of the Rolling Stones, ultimately gathered (Kate) Moss.
A Rolling Stone gathers no moss

I say "amusing" because my opponent has, of course, completely misinterpreted the idiom 'a Rolling Stone gathers no Moss'. Absurdly, he asserts that the proverb refers to "any tiny, leafy-stemmed, flowerless plant of the class Musci" when everybody knows it's about British supermodels whose family name is Moss. It is also well-known that members of the Rolling Stones, such as Ronnie Wood, frequent social gatherings where British supermodels whose family name is Moss are fellow guests. Just recently, for example, the headline of the British tabloid newspaper, The Daily Mail, announced "Kate Moss and Ronnie Wood party night away at Paul McCartney's wedding. " (1) Furthermore, Ronnie Wood and the other Rolling Stones were invited to Kate Moss' own wedding. (2) Now, when Ronnie Wood out of the Rolling Stones is planning a party himself, he might decide he needs balloons, streamers, party poppers, funny hats, games, trifles, cream cakes, blancmanges, iced buns, lemonade and, perhaps, a magician or clown, but he would also surely realise that he needs to gather some guests together. So, no doubt he would gather celebrities from the world of fashion and pop and no such gathering would be complete without a British supermodel; the two most famous of which are Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss. Now, given that Ronnie Wood out of the Rolling Stones is such good friends with Kate Moss, when deciding which British supermodel to gather, do you think it likely that he would conclude "yes Campbell" but "no Moss"? Of course not! And that's why I duly affirm that the proverb 'a Rolling Stone gathers no Moss' does not stand. Thank you. (1) . http://entertainment.stv.tv... (2) . http://www.examiner.com...