BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ethanol subsidies and RFS should be eliminated by the US Federal Government

It is true that ethanol is thought of as a renewable fuel; however, using ethanol as a fuel will not bring about any benefits compared to fossil fuels. Here are two reasons why. 1) Ethanol is worse environmentally. Robert W. Hahn also stated (see link above) ""One of the greatest challenges to the greenhouse gas reductions attributed to ethanol is from a recent study led by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen. The study finds that the amount of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, emitted through agriculture was previously underestimated. Accounting for the increase in nitrous oxide emissions actually results in net increases in greenhouse gases from the production and use of biofuels such as ethanol." Looking at the Greenhouse gas emissions, ethanol is worse than gasoline. Ethanol is also bad for the environment as I stated above. 2) Ethanol cannot replace Fossil fuels. In order for the US to completely depend on ethanol as a fuel, we would need to use every single acre of crop land in the US, use it to grow corn, and turn it over to be used to produce ethanol. And we'd need another 20 percent of usable land on top of that. Even the U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for ethanol production is 700,000 barrels per day, a figure not realistic until 2030. Ethanol is a horrendous fuel with devastating impacts. Attempting to use it to get off fossil fuels will only lead to more problems. The US Government should end its subsidies to this industry.
Ethanol subsidies and RFS should be eliminated by the US Federal Government

This is my first debate on here so we'll see how this goes. =) Currently the USFG (United States Federal Government) is giving tax credits, subsidies, etc. to the ethanol industry. They should be eliminated. Here's why. 1) Ethanol raises food prices Since most of the ethanol produced in the US is and will be corn ethanol, corn that is used for ethanol is unable to be used as food resulting in an increase in food prices. The Congressional Budget Office wrote in 2009 (http://www.cbo.gov... ) "The upswing in the demand for corn to be used in producing domestic ethanol raised the commodity's price, CBO estimates, by between 50 cents and 80 cents per bushel between April 2007 and April 2008. That range is equivalent to between 28 percent and 47 percent of the increase in the price of corn, which rose from $3.39 per bushel to $5.14 per bushel during the same period. That price increase occurred despite an increase in corn production--that is, in the amount of corn grown, harvested, and marketed." Ethanol subsidies encourage an industry that increases food prices for everyone. 2) Ethanol overall hurts the environment Some people only focus on the greenhouse gas emissions that come from ethanol, but ignore the larger picture. Robert W. Hahn, 2008, (http://www.brookings.edu...) "In general, many studies focus on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with ethanol use, but ignore some of the other environmental impacts including resource depletion, ozone depletion, acidification, human and ecological health, and smog formation." By subsidizing the ethanol industry, the USFG is encouraging an industry that is hazardous to our health and the enviroment. 3) Ethanol is economically unsustainable with subsidies Jerry Taylor, 2007, (http://www.cato.org...) "The underlying premise of energy policy - that the federal government must act to promote alternative energy - is dubious. If investing in alternative energy makes economic sense, investors will make those investments of their own free will because that's how profits are secured in a free market economy. If investing in alternative energy does not make economic sense, investors will rightly eschew those investments." Ethanol is a bad fuel that has many problems and the subsidies that keep the industry afloat should be eliminated.
Soda Drinking In Schools

I appreciate your position, but completely disagree with it. < > According to law, children cannot consume alcohol, even with a parent's consent, so they should not have a say in this matter when they are clearly not present to monitor their child's behavior. << If it's not allowed then don't give your child money for school. If he has to pay his own money to get a soda they'll not only appreciate the value of money but also be less likely to splurge themselves. >> Some children have the means of generating their own incomes (i. e. newspaper route, babysitting), so that won't eliminate the problem. < > By this argument, illegal street drugs should be legal to all because some people can handle their drug usage responsibly. This logic is unacceptable. It is better for all to restrict the consumption of soda during school hours. Students should not need chemical stimulation during the school day. More often than not, caffeine boosts and sugar rushes cause young students to be disruptive in class. If a class has thirty students, it is unfair for a teacher to maintain order within his/her classroom while one student acts out as a result from drinking soda. Also, drinking soda is not conducive to good learning habits. It is no healthier to drink soda than it is to drink water. There is no evidence that drinking soda improves any aspect of importance in the learning process. Soda drinking can be done after school hours, where underpaid teachers do not have to babysit the hyperactive children of others. There is no call for it during school hours. I look forward to your rebuttal, crackofdawn.
Soda Drinking In Schools

I am for soda's to be allowed in school. Some might argue that some kids can't help themselves when it comes to sweet treats. I however believe that it's up to the parents to determine whether or not a child drinks soda. If it's not allowed then don't give your child money for school. If he has to pay his own money to get a soda they'll not only appreciate the value of money but also be less likely to splurge themselves. It's not fair that just because a select few can't control themselves (although above I've already mentioned how to fix that) that the rest should suffer. There are plenty of kids out there who can handle soda drinking responsibility and for lack of a better word are getting "screwed" by those rules. A select few should not determine the outcome for all.
Soda Drinking In Schools

You did a good job as an opponent, crackofdawn. I'll wrap up my end and we can see how the voting goes! < > I disagree. Parents can watch their kids all the time, if they home school their children, in which I think soda drinking is acceptable, but only in this case. <> Yes, but why should any teacher have to go through this trial period with every student? Soda is not necessary for students to make it through the day. The potential for disruption is much too high to ignore, as it is much easier just to ban soda drinking during school hours. <> It did have its effects, but there were no negative ones. Especially not in my professional life. People manage this all the time. It's the same with any other thing, like food for instance. If you eat a healthy diet, you don't experience negative consequences as a result from it. < > That was never in dispute for me. < > I agree. A law against drinking soda during school hours is not necessary, but a school rule definitely seems reasonable. < > Kids will also lie to get what they want. << If you ask me it seems much more likely that kids are doing that to excuse their soda drinking and try to make it okay to continue. I have many friends who drink soda a lot. When we go on long trips (i. e. boy scouts) they suffer no headaches. People can get addicted to it yes, but as far as I'm concerned that is a low percentage of the soda drinking population. Once again I come back to the argument that what a kid eats and drinks is his parents responsibility, not the governments. >> Is a government not responsible for its citizens? Yes, it is. It's why the Surgeon General makes warnings on harmful products. < > You are not a parent, nor have you raised any kids, so you cannot make such a statement. Not all parents are like your parents. < > This is just WRONG. Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper all have caffeine. Lots of caffeine. < > No, it completely supports it. It's habit-forming and you acknowledged it in your own argument. <> See? You admit it is the first domino. One kid falls and the rest follow suit. All falling into bad behavior, one after another. < > That is still a disruption to the education of the disruptive students and to the education of the non-disruptive students. Then the teacher has to re-teach the disruptive students, when s/he could be doing something more productive to help the class in general. < > Yes, and choosing to drink soda during school hours is the wrong decision. I am glad you are able to see things my way in the end. You did a good job and I appreciate your ability to agree with my side of the debate. I look forward to debating you in the future, crackofdawn. Better luck next time!
There should be no ads during TV programs specifically aimed at children

Ads are designed in a particular way to make you remember them. It could be an annoying little jingle but think to yourself, have you ever found yourself humming one of these tune? Now think about what that would sound like to a young child. If these ads are aimed at children, they will remember those ads for a long time and then during the ad they will actually pay attention. Also humans have a balance of what they need as opposed to what they want. We know that everything we need, we can somehow manage to get it for ourselves without needing to be talked into it. Ads trigger this feeling of need and can then result in the watcher feeling inadequate.
everything that I think is factual is factual.

A fact cannot be based off of subjective opinion. To do that would invalidate it as a fact and make it a theory or opinion, since facts are of an objective reality(1), meaning they never change. Again, we believed that the earth was flat a long time ago, yet that was just our belief as we had no way of confirming it. Now we can confirm that the earth is round. My Ad Populum argument stands.Moreover your response to the Ad Populum argument doesn't even respond to my argument but only re-entrenches yourself in it. Double-whammy.You say that your view is not your opinion, but it's just from your perspective. In this situation, those are exactly the same thing. From your perspective, everyone may agree with you, but your perspective can always be wrong. I may have the perspective that invisible pink unicorns exist, but my perspective can still be wrong. Just having one perspective to see things from does not automatically confirm that one perspective is true.I win. Source in comments.
everything that I think is factual is factual.

what is a 'fact' and what actually is are not always the same thing. I'm not saying that when I believe something that that thing actually is, I'm just saying it is fact. What was considered scientific fact 100 years ago is considered ridiculous today, as what is considered scientific fact today will most likely be considered ridiculous 100 years from now. so if you accept that 'factual' means not what actually is, but what is the accepted description of reality as humans know it at any given time, it allows for my argument. On your second point, when I say I think that others think that what I think is true is true, I don't mean it is my opinion. I mean from my perspective, others actually do think that; I believe that it is a fact. So, according to the above definition of factual, from my frame of reference it is universally agreed upon that whatever I think is true is a fact. And because I have no other frame of reference to compare it to, I can only conclude that my theory is true.
everything that I think is factual is factual.

The problem with that is it's commiting the Argument from Popularity fallacy, being that if everyone thinks that something is factual, then it is factual. We can see the flaw in this because if everyone thought that the earth was flat, the earth obviously wouldn't spontaneously become flat. So even if you thought that everyone thought your thoughts were fact, that wouldn't make them fact.But moreover, your thought in no way controls the thoughts of everyone else. Presuming it wasn't commiting Ad Populum, going about that chain of thought would just leave you that you thought everyone agreed with you, and that would just be your subjective opinion. There would be no way to verify, however, if you were actually right.Therefore, you're wrong.1000 character debate for the win :D
Snow is better than rain

TemperatureYeah, well sometimes is still sometimes, so my point still stands, and your point is still invalid. You stated in Round 2: "Although snow is cold, people can get colder if soaked by rain if its not warm outside. " By using the word "can" you also set a condition, thus making your original point a "sometimes" as well. HurricaneWhile a hurricane by definition may not be a synonym of rain, the rain is still the reason we are let off school. Because I live in the South, there are not many tornadoes, and the lightning/thunder rarely causes any damage. Rather, it is the rain (and the accompanying wind) that causes the "damage. " Obviously, I'm not very good at pure-subjective debates. ..
Snow is better than rain

Nope your not taking this too seriously at all. Ok, all that my opponent has stated throughout is that SOMETIMES, people will not get colder by rain, other than that all they have done is agree with my points. Also a hurricane is not rain, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph. rain is water on that falls from the sky after evaporating and re-condensing. Hurricanes also are, by definition, tropical systems with well-organized circulation and convection.
Snow is better than rain

I encourage everyone to give the Conduct points to Con, because I failed to recognise my position in this debate before I accepted. I am very thankful my opponent has offered to debate the opposing side, though I would have done the same. Thanks.TemperatureMy opponent makes the claim that "people can get colder if soaked by rain." While this is true, that people can often get colder through rain, the average temperature of rain, relative to the air temperature, is described in three patterns: Type I: The rain starts with a minimum in its temperature but then rises to meet the air temperature within 1°C, which is also decreasing slowly[1] Type II: The rain is considerably lower than the air temperature. This is commonly associated with hail.[1] Type III: The difference between the air temperature and rain temperature is small throughout the entire storm.[1] As you can see, there is much variability in how cold rain can actually be, and many times it is dependent on the time a subject is caught in the rain, and also the local air temperature. Snow, however, ranges from -1°C to -15°C.[2]Although it is possible for rain to be colder than snow, depending on the air temperature and time, snow is on average colder than rain because it requires a low temperature and does not have as much variability.Also, I apologize if I'm taking this too seriously.Quiet and beautifulI make this concession. Snow is much more beautiful and quiet than rain, and this is a valid point when considering subjective view. Snow is funI guess if you enjoy cold sports! Day off for RainI live in Louisiana. We get off for hurricanes all the time. References1. http://goo.gl...;2. http://goo.gl...;3. http://goo.gl...;
Snow is better than rain

Umm... I don't really think you looked very closely at my debate. The debate was "Snow is better than rain" which I am against. But I will argue the opposing side anyways. Although snow is cold, people can get colder if soaked by rain if its not warm outside. Snow is quiet and can be beautiful, where as rain is thunderously loud at times and makes mud. Snow can be fun, everybody has to love going sledding or snowball fights, skiing, snowboarding, ect. And of course, a top one for those in school... Have ever heard of a day off for rain? No. Your turn! :)
America's political leaders are not thinking in the best interest of the people, but themselves.

If the big dogs aren't blowing the money, then why are there artificial private islands being made, that are even mobile mind you, and houses worth over millions of dollars. Tell me that's necessary. While the people down here are working every day to put food on the plate. Look at all the hobos. Yeah some of them are just stupid drunks, but some of them are actually struggling, a lot of them are actually just kids. But what are these big political leaders doing to help? Nothing. They address the issues convenient for them, but not the major issues that the country actually needs addressed. They send our troops to war, and for what, not to protect our country, because where our troops are we aren't threatened, but they are out there dying so the government can have a little more control and rake in a little more dough. And that ain't right.
America's political leaders are not thinking in the best interest of the people, but themselves.

I believe they are because no one can deny the direction this country is heading, Well, that depends where you think this country is heading. I can deny that this country is heading towards a zombie apocalypse but I could say that I don't deny that this country is heading for the future or whatever the government says America is heading for. Although, there are haters who be hating that deny that this country is heading towards prosperity, like Russia for example or all other anarchists against America. and someone is blowing the big money. Someone could be blowing big money but who does that, seriously? All those rich guys with big money are all greedy and snobby that they wouldn't want to blow on their money to catch all the bacteria from it. No, they would rather just throw the money, but not try to accidentally put their lips too close to the money and actually kiss it... well, maybe some rich people, but still. Anyway, I will argue that our political leaders are thinking for the best interest of us, the people, not just for themselves. State your case.
Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named

Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not "discover" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you "discover" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. The Vikings were the first Europeans that we know of that came to the Americas [1]. So if the Vikings were the first Europeans over here (and in North America), why is it Columbus that gets the credit? The first European colony in the modern-day United States was Ponce de Leon in modern-day Florida. The United States derived from the British colonies...so again, why is it Columbus that we celebrate? Aside from the fact that Columbus had no bearing on the modern-day United States, his name should be erased from this holiday due to his treatments towards the native tribes. The native tribes that Columbus encountered (Taino) were murdered, raped, and enslaved by Columbus and his men [2]. Columbus blamed the Taino for the failures and laziness of his own men. The Taino greeted Columbus with peace and generosity and yet he treated them with hostility. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES! [1] https://www.britannica.com... [2]http://www.glencoe.com...
Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

I will quote you as well: "Bill-Os view V's. opponent's view = two different viewpoints" Is it that he is giving them a chance to speak or is using them to show a typical response to his arguments to make his argument look indefinite. He uses other views to spin them around into his own words, example of such can be cited on my video posted in round 1 of O'Reilly claiming the son of the 911 victim had said bush did not respond to 911 appropriately, instead he made the kids words out to be that Bush did the world trade center attacks to create to appearance of a conspiracy theorist. It is still bias if he is using them to his advantage in the debate. Also I would like to Reiterate the definition of bias as leaning to one political view over another, his show defiantly displays such, and cutting the mike off people who win arguments is very relevant as it shows no matter what O'Reillys point will prevail no matter what costs, proving he's not out for unbiased commendations just one sided debates for his point of view.
Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

"Interviewing people of different views does not make some one free from bias claims" -It makes them free of the the claim that they are "completely biased" though. "he rarly even gives people of other views a chance to respond without interuption, attacks, or miic cut offs if he loses an arguement" -Irrelevant. He still lets them come on his show. This only proves that he is a poor debator and has poor etiquette. It does not prove he is "completely biased". "Debating people of different views actually makes him bias as he is putting one point of view forward." -How is only one point of view coming across? -Bill-O's view vs. opponent's view = two different viewpoints. "Bill O'Reilly can never just interview, in every program he attacks, as such sampled in this video:" -Irrelevant. This does not prove he is "completely biased" or "often times false". "My opponant has not shown any evidence of him bieng unbiased, just contradicted himself by saying debating people of different views is unbiased as its debating, agrueing his point against his guests." -I don't have to show any evidence of him being unbiased. You are the one who holds the burden of proof. I will quote myself from earlier in the debate: "I would like to remind my opponent that he bears a tremendous burden of proof. Pro bears a tremendous burden of proof because he has to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator. I am greatly curious to see how Pro proves that Bill-O is 100% biased and frequently false."
Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

Interviewing people of different views does not make some one free from bias claims, he rarly even gives people of other views a chance to respond without interuption, attacks, or miic cut offs if he loses an arguement. Debating people of different views actually makes him bias as he is putting one point of view forward. Bill O'Reilly can never just interview, in every program he attacks, as such sampled in this video: http://www.youtube.com... My opponant has not shown any evidence of him bieng unbiased, just contradicted himself by saying debating people of different views is unbiased as its debating, agrueing his point against his guests.