BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Could My Ultimatum and Recolonization Plan Help Stop Ebola

I win. "There is no doubt that medically "something" is better than nothing." Con has conceded that my plan would help. That is all I had to prove, not that it would be right or be the best merely that it would help stop ebola. "How many are they testing? What is the accuracy of said tests?" In situations like these they should test every single person. As to the problem of rape, if we test everyone the person who gets infected can still be quarantined. Anyone who had sex with them consensual or not should be retested and then if they are claiming rape they could press charges, which is a separate issue from stemming the tide of ebola, an important issue but not the same one. As to your point about doctors not washing their hands in the US. True but the policy is that they do wash their hands. And my proposal involves jail for violators in these particular countries if it reaches the point of requiring recolonization. Severe criminal penalties would make transmission even less likely than in Western countries. If it was hard to enforce we would only need to set up cameras. As to clothing you're right I didn't point out any obvious links. Suffice to say what ever the standards are in Western countries should be uniformally enforced in Africa. That makes sense given that disease transmission is lower in the West.
Could My Ultimatum and Recolonization Plan Help Stop Ebola

Con brings up rape as a means of transmitting ebola. African countries are already quarantining people who test positive for ebola. I would expect that to continue. But when you add an ultimatum for these countries to strictly enforce medical safety standards such as proper attire, washing hands, and prohibiting the reuse of needles then the risk of these quarantined patients passing the disease on to others once quarantined drops significantly. By protective clothing I am talking about the clothing standards used in western hospitals and when it comes to treating known ebola patients any special standards the west uses in those cases would be required to be implemented by the African countries. It may be advantageous to include other things in the ultimatum than what I mentioned in round 1. While that is beyond the scope of the debate the debate is "Could my ultimatum and recolonization plan help stop ebola?" and even if we didn't add to the ultimatum something is better than nothing. African countries currently have hospitals where doctors sometimes don't wash their hands, don't wear proper protective clothing, and where needles are reused in medical treatments. Stopping these things would at least help for sure.
Could My Ultimatum and Recolonization Plan Help Stop Ebola

Based solely on the idea that your methods would stop the spread of Ebola the main issue and hole in your argument lies in implementation, and overall understanding of the disease. First off we have the implementation, economic arguments along with social ones are valid in this case because you require both of these to cooperate in order for your plan of "Recolonization" to take effect. With these in mind one has to look objectively at the situation as a whole, first off with your plan there requires a large subsidization by the respective countries governments who are providing the support. Granted that this can be overcome and such assistance can be provided conditions are met. However in terms of social issues Africa has been plagued for an innumerable amount of years by inequality towards women. This relates to the Ebola crisis due to the large amount of women being raped every day. Now considering that the virus spreads several ways you made the point that nations or Africa itself should provide "protective clothing" to those who live there. Now considering that you did not specify what qualifies for protective clothing I will simply assume that it is the general long pants, long sleeve shirts, underwear, t-shirts, shorts, etc. (or at least until you refine this point) taking that into consideration you did not provide any way to make sure that rape doesn't happen or that the virus is not spread sexually by carriers who have yet to be identified as infected. Therefore while your plan has solved the medical issues that plague the country and that the African Union (AU) are well aware of your plan does however solve the social issues that make rape a normality in the country or provide any way to promote safe sexual intercourse at least until the Ebola epidemic has calmed down. Then you have the overall understanding of the disease known as Ebola at large. You have left out several main issues with how Ebola spreads, including sexual intercourse it can also be spread through mammals such as bats, dogs, humans, monkeys, apes, etc. this is important considering that these are a lot harder to stop let alone and can spread rapidly considering that the disease can also be spread through feces. Overall your plan is not at all complete and leaves gaping holes in how it is to be implemented and in what it covers overall. Primary sources on the disease used in this argument are located below http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.who.int... http://mg.co.za...
Could My Ultimatum and Recolonization Plan Help Stop Ebola

Rules: 1. The basis of whether I win or not is not based on whether we should adopt this proposal just whether it would stop ebola. So moral arguments such as "this sort of intervention in other people's affairs is wrong" do not count towards determining the winner. Economic arguments that this would cost western nations money to implement also are irrelevant. This debate is solely about whether this would work to stop the spread of ebola. As we all know there is an ebola epidemic in Africa. Ebola only spreads through bodily fluids. This limits its spread in developed countries. The reason for its spread in developing countries is largely due to the lack of protective clothing in African hospitals, the reuse of needles, and ignoring precautions universal outside of Africa. My proposal for the good of health of people all over the world but especially in Africa is this: We give African nations an ultimatum. They will strictly enforce proper protective clothing rules observed in the West, prohibit the reuse of needles, and require strict handwashing. They will have to see to the enforcement of this, firing anybody found to be in violation. Western states will sell supplies needed to make this possible such as clean needles and medical clothing at reduced costs either by selling the products at reduced cost from state-owned companies or by reimbursing the African nations for private purchases. We give them 3 years and then investigate. Any nation that is not compliant is invaded by a coalition of developed nations and put under an administration appointed by them which will fully police and enforce these medical standards. It is inexcusable that these nations don't have up to date standards for medicine. If recolonization becomes necessary a full effort against it including jail for violators of the law. It is clear this would stop the transmission of ebola. Con's job is to disprove my contention that this would stop the transmission of ebola. If con can not do that con loses.
Homeschooling should be banned by Government

But as we know. Homeschooling is not cheaper than public school. In the public school, government will give the student who lives with poor family. So, the government will give the schoolarship for the students who lives with poor family, government not only gives schoolarship for the student who get achievement. Don't worry if you stay in poor family, it's not mean that you can't go to school, government will gives you schoolarship. And I do believe this programme is running in every countries such as Indonesia it self.
Homeschooling should be banned by Government

if you think can't afford the education is people whose disability, in Indonesia there's special school for disabled people such as blind people, deaf people and many more. So don't worry abaout that. And homeschooling here that can't guarantee if their graduation that has good quality like in piblic school. But you can see student who win in olympics is come from public school not from homeschooling. So, you can get the conclusion. Homeschooling don't give us a good quality student. And I do believe public school gives us many advantages such as increase the socialization for the student who go to the public school, because they have there are many friends and for pshycology side, it's very good. because the student who go to public school will not feel lonely and their friend will accompany that student, so the student can share their problem with their friends not only with their parents. You can see, there are many advantages if we go to public school. That I said are only a few example and many example which give us advantages if we go to the public school
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

This debate is a great example: Short, 750 character three round debate. Some may say it is insignificant. No "real world" impact. Yet I have enjoyed, an found it challenging due to the topic and restrictions. I am glad you posted it. All should be able to post similar debates. I maintain that no debate on DDO affects the “real world. ” More facets does not make something significant. These so called “insignificant debates” bring people to the website. People enjoy them, participate in them, and vote on them. Pro has not provided sufficient support for his resolve. People should be free to post debates on whatever topic they want, regardless of my opponents view of the topics being insignificant. Thanks for the debate!
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

Debates can affect the real world as I said in my previous arguments, they can effect people's minds and in turn, the people affect the world. My opponent stated that debate skills can be applied to any debate no matter the topic, this is somewhat true, but not in the extent it could be if people debated significant topics. For instance, if people were to debate whether national security ought to be valued over a free press, there are many more facets to explore than koalas vs penguins. Because of this I am proposing that instead of posting insignificant debates, the person should find a much more interesting and effective topic to debate to keep interests high and keep debaters coming back for more of DDO.
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

DDO is not the “real world." No debate from DDO has any “real world” impact. Thus the significance of a debate is in the eye of the beholder. People are not just accepting these debates, they are starting them, again this suggest that it is significant to them. People should post debates about whatever they want. The topics may seem insignificant and are so named by my opponent, however, debate skills can be applied to any debate no matter the topic. DDO creates an environment where people can debate whatever they want. Pro has not provided sufficient arguments to justify changing the status quo. As significance is in the eye of the beholder there does not seem to be a objective way to declare something significant or not.
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

My opponent stated that I deemed my own debates "important" and others are "insignificant" I was merely stating that people should find a topic of importance in the real world. Obviously, the topics "are penguins better than koalas" and "blue or brown box" are not significant in the real world. If this happens to be important to that person then they should try to apply it in their real life, if they can't apply it to the real world, then it is obviously insignificant. A debate about politics or religion you can apply to your point of view to expand your horizons, koalas don't seem to have this effect. People accept insignificant debates for lack of a significant debate. And a large number of debates has nothing to do with significance.
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

Good luck,Insignificant: “small or unimportant : not significant” Importance: “value or significance” Pro claims himself superior to others on DDO, deeming his own debates “important” and others “insignificant.” This is foolish as both are in the eye of the beholder. Obviously the debates deemed “insignificant” are significant to those who participate, evident as people do participate. Also evident by the large number of debates. These debates are therefore “good”, as people would not participate otherwise. The resolution is negated. I invite pro to prove insignificance or importance of these debates. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
People should not post debates about random and insignificant topics

RULES: Con must prove that it is good for people to post debates about random and insignificant topics. This has been one of the main pet peeves of mine since joining DDO. It is utterly annoying that people have to scroll past a plethora of insignificant topics to find one of actual importance in the world. It seems to me that people post these types of debates so that their record will show that they have completed a higher number of debates. This hurts DDO because most people will eventually leave because of the lack of interest. If people want to post a ton of debates, fine. Just make them about something that will actually make a difference in the reader/debater's brain.
Resolved: Universities in the US ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

I don't see your argument, but it seems Universities should be in the business of teaching, not restricting anything. In addition, there's two different types of schools: public and private: 1. Public schools take public money so they have no right to restrict anything given that they are supported by and must represent the society as a whole. 2. Private schools are supported by private donors, so they should represent those interest groups. However, by restricting constitutionally protected speech, they wold discriminate against some groups which would restrict their appeal. The argument against these schools is not as strong. If catholic schools want to restrict anti-abortion speech on their campuses, they should be free to do so. Still, to broaden their appeal, they should exercise this right sparingly.
Resolved: Universities in the US ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

I am a student participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate and would like to bring my resolution here in order to better my case. I'd like to structure this like a common LD debate in which morality is of the utmost value and more important than other factors such has practicality or efficiency. To write an LD cases values, definitions, value criterion, and moral frameworks are used. If you need clarification for the format of this debate I'd be happy to respond in the comments. Remember, this is just for fun to help me make my case better for competition. 1. Round one will be for acceptance 2. CON - address values and case PRO - address values, case and rebuttals 3. CON - Review case, rebuttals and values PRO - Case, rebuttals and values 4. Both - Summary
To be chosen.

I'll address my opponent's claims, then provide some of my own. My opponent's argument is in the form of a syllogism: p (existence) -> (implies) q (having a cause) p (the universe exists) Therefore, q (the universe has a cause) This is agreeable, and does not support his position; of course the universe had a cause. However, as I am not familiar with quantum physics and the like, I will unfortunately have to refer to Wikipedia for evidence of the Big Bang. Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org... Quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org... ^Those are your causes for the universe existing. "It would exist outside of the universe, thereby being immaterial. It would be extremely powerful, in order to make the universe. It would be personal, in order to decide to make the universe (this personal, extremely powerful, and immaterial creator of the universe would be God, in case you missed that)." Just as Puck said [I already knew this, so don't accuse me of taking help from commentators], nothing can exist outside of space, and even if it was possible, it could not interact with our universe. So this point is false. My opponent's next argument relies on the BELIEF that, essentially, something had to design life's complexities. Not only is this merely an assumption, giving no valid evidence, but it is slightly absurd. If a philosopher was able to discover these ridiculous chances, then they are obviously not too complex for human, which means they could not be supernatural[ly designed] in any way. "The fact that this designer existed to design them at the beginning of the universe shows that this designer exists outside the universe." See "nothing can exist outside of space", etc. =============================================================================== Now I will provide some common syllogisms as to why God, logically, cannot exist. 1) a. If God exists, he is immutable. b. If God exists, he is perfectly loving. c. An immutable being, by definition, cannot be affected by events. d. To be all-loving, a God must be affected by events. e. But it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from c and d) f. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from a, b, and e). 2) a. If God exists, he is omnipotent. b. An omnipotent being, by definition, is capable of performing ANY action. c. So, God can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it (from a and b) d. But if God cannot lift the stone, then he is not omnipotent (from b) e. Furthermore, if God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (from b) f. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from a, b, c, d, and e). 3) a. If God exists, he is perfectly loving. b. If God is perfectly loving, reasonable non-belief does not occur. c. However, reasonable non-belief does occur. d. So, God is not perfectly loving (from b and c). e. Therefore, God does not exist (from a and d). That will be all for now.
To be chosen.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work: Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics. Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate. Contender R2: Choose "PRO" or "CON", and first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
On the Topic of Free-will, Surely in a scientific world must not exist!

I would like to start off by saying that this is truly the greatest question ever known to all subject matter (Science, Philosophy, Religion, Mathematics, Robotics, Politics, and of course You and Me). To begin on what level do we as individuals justify the existence of free will. Is because of conscious perceptions we have in the day to day choices and decisions we make, or is it because of the creativity of mankind that we believe we are the forgers of our own destiny's? My argument thus begins with my conclusion off of the book the Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick. If neurological synapses firing in our brains predate (in the milliseconds leading towards) our cognitive awareness that then leads to actions taken in the real world. It then follows like a stream to a river that man is unaware of his/her own true intentions and is therefore subjected to a will that is ubiquitous to conscious decision making.
On the Topic of Free-will, Surely in a scientific world must not exist!

I have read your first paragraph and I am at a loss to what you wanted to say except modify a little the wikipedia definition of free will. On top of that selecting a course of action is similar to having an agent accomplishing a task and accomplishing desires generated by the human mind is similar to having a recognition in the mind of the external constraints from that same wikipedia definition. Regarding your second and third paragraph, there is evidently determinism in the human mind with regards to what course of action it will choose for the individual in a certain situation. But between startling the children by striking fear in the mind of the thief or not, the actions of the person subduing the thief are not predictable by factors external to the inner workings of his or her mind. So we are still very well in our rights to define the existence of free will in the external actions of that person. No inner simulation of the outside world that tries to generate decisions for a person is 100 percent predictable no matter the external constraints. Take for example a policeman pointing a gun to someone and saying out loud 'freeze'. Is everybody going to freeze or are there cases where some people would just bolt as fast as they can? Again free will defined in an external context with a far greater external constraint. The physics example is not a way to tell more about the definition of free will. It is instead a perfectly good justification of all this fudging of the definition of what is free will. No need to worry that there is a fundamentally deterministic inner working of the mind when free will is defined in terms of external actions. Take the physics law of gravity. The inner workings of the law where completely changed with the advent of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. All that started with trouble with the old way of defining the law of gravity. Experiments were made and things didn't add up anymore. And they kept not adding up until they decided that the world is not wrong about what it tells us. Only the stated definition of the law is wrong. Change the definition and we have Einstein's gravity 2.0. Likewise a completely deterministic human mind can be defined as externally behaving in a way that resembles the presence of free will, simply because not all the intermediate steps to the making of the decision are apparent. So we have free will on the outside with a deterministic inner mechanism. Just as Einstein's gravity is completely redefined and we still have the same gravity acting on ourselves and our universe.