BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

Hi! I know what this is. I'm not a huge DBZ fan but I've heard what all this is about. 1. You cannot prove it. Gt is non cannon. The creator of the originals didn't make GT, so even if you had a quote from him saying he is stronger, Toriyama can't decide. It's like the creator of one superhero claiming his comic is stronger than another one without any real proof. 2. Why can't they be equal? Continually throughout the series the good guy is weaker than the bad one. Then the good guy finds a new form, and beats the bad guy. This is what happens, except the SSJ4 Goku actually beats his foe. The God Goku loses after he transforms. 3. Is god the last form Goku can take in the real series? If he is, then maybe in the non cannon series SSJ 4 isn't the last form and he can transform into the next form.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

You see the problem is that the fuels need land and transportation and finally conversion, when these factors are included there is no reduction of CO2. GENERIC EVIDENCE "Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks and accelerating global warming" . http://ecoworldly.com...... "Ethanol production increases air pollution" . http://redorbit.com...... ml The paper by Crutzen at al is frequently cited as evidence against the use of biofuels as an effective means of mitigating global climate change, HOWEVER, Crutchen's methodology is flawed, when land use is considered there is no reduction in GHG emissions . http://www.dft.gov.uk...... Yes we have a come a long way, however, because the policy, plan, resolution, what ever one wants to call it, calls for all vehicles sold in the USA must work from alternative fuels by 2040, after it no other car may be sold, thus if we wait till 2040 to develop some fuel that will be actually good, our commuting would be cut, since no other car would be allowed to sell and we would not have developed alternative fuel powered vehicles. Although you are not predicting directly, you are implying a prediction that by 2040 we will have biofuels that work great, that is incorrect; Menand 2005, (he is the author I use to answer your prediction) what we find is that our predictions are no different than the prediction made by experts, furthermore, the more information you have, the more you are likely to be wrong, finally monkeys throwing darts are more accurate then the people who predict, therefore I urge voters not believe that we will find some miracle by 2040. Again the resolution asks for "alternative fuels" word "fuels" being the multiple therefore Pro has to defend all fuels, I didn't make up this resolution, the national committee did for the PF debate. Sure one fuel might be alright, but the resolution is calling for alternative fuels, so if there is a bad fuel, the plan itself is bad, again i do not mean to abusive, its just the way things appear. "HYDROGEN VEHICLES WILL BE USED AS MASSIVE BOMBS BY TERRORISTS" . http://www.chem-bioleng.northwestern.edu...... "Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers" . http://www.iied.org...... Ask yourself a question, are we ready by 2040? Certainly there are no guarantees? Finally, if the alternative fuels are so sweet, why not mandate by 2030? You see, the government has no reason to mandate a better way would be to provide tax breaks and incentives, instead of pushing it onto people, think about it, whenever the government puts their nose into something, bad things go, (When the government interferes with economic processes, such as vehicle sales) Also, think about this, if the alternative fuels are good, why then they are not used right now? Perhaps they are not currently able to be economically competent, are they?
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Ok, before we begin this debate, I ask that all voters to vote on the merits of the debaters themselves, rather than which side they agree with. I agree to the first two the above stated rules and will not run a plan or any other illegal arguments, and will make sure my opponent is held up to the same standard by making sure that no counter-plans, Kritiks, or any other illegal forms of argumentation are used. I do have a couple questions concerning evidence though; will simple cards be enough to suffice as evidence? Also, if logic is sufficient to prove a claim, is evidence needed? Finally, concerning the third rule, I am confused as to why the punishment for the breaking of one of the rules is an automatic loss of the debate? Would it not make more sense to merely just invalidate that one argument (ex. if a counter-plan involving the post-office is run, and it is pointed out within the debate that it is a counter-plan, the whole argument is ignored) rather than to give an automatic loss? I am sorry if I sound egoistic, pompous, full of myself, etc. , but it simply does not make any sense to me.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I stand to negate the following "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels." The first round doesn't count and is only for rules. The Rules: 1. Public Forum type debate, therefore no CP, Kritics, etc 2. Provide evidence for claims and explain things that are not simple concepts 3. Please accept with the PF rules in mind, a violation = losing. Thanks and Good Luck!
God exists.

1. Really? You say that the Torah has to fit both criteria to be true, I established it fits the first, and you say that it isn't sufficient proof. YES! That's why I proved #2 aalso! You said that the people who made the claim have to know what they are claiming, Jews claim this, do they know what they are claiming to? YES! I proved this, also, yes your analogy is correct, if L. Ron Hubbard studied Dianetics, he is in a position to know what his claims were in regards to dianetics. 2. Actualy, the Code of Hammurabi was introdced by a king, not the people themselves, thus proving my point, people wouldn't pass a law themselves that would make life harder for them. And no king was in Israel until ~1050 B.C.E., so no one is going to force the jews to believe this code. QAlso, there is a LOT of proof of Moses, Atheists just tried saying there wasn't because they were looking through 145 B.C.E., while he was actualy around 2450 BC.E. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org...;
God exists.

As I said in the previous round, the two prerequisites for accepting any claim on testimony are: 1. That the person testifying be in a position to know the facts they are testifying to. 2. That the person have motives consistent with accurately stating whether the facts in question hold. Since my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate, and his case rests on the credibility of the Torah, I invited my opponent to establish that the Torah meets these two criteria. My opponent's justification for saying that the authors of the Torah meet criterion 1 is that "every Jew is required to study their Torah, and so were the Exodus Jews." However, this does not establish that the authors of the Torah were in a position to know the facts they were testifying to, since no matter how many people study a book, that doesn't establish that what it says is true. This argument is like a Scientologist arguing that L. Ron Hubbard was in a position to know that what he says in Dianetics is true because every Scientologist is required to study Dianetics. There is no logical connection between the fact that a group of people study a book and whether or not the book's claims are true. My opponent's justification for saying that the authors of the Torah meet criterion 2 is that the Jews wouldn't give themselves all of the laws in the Torah if they were making it up themselves. But plenty of societies across the world have come up with incredibly restrictive laws, like the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi is arguably even more restrictive than the Biblical code, since it has laws like "If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death." [1] My opponent also claims that Moses would have no ulterior motives for writing the Torah, but how do we know that Moses even existed, let alone wrote the Torah? The fact that an ancient book claims he existed isn't particularly good evidence for his existence. Many historians favor the Documentary Hypothesis, which says that the Torah was assembled over time from a variety of different writings. [2] Since my opponent has failed to establish that the Torah meets criteria 1 and 2, he has failed to meet his burden of proof, so we should negate the resolution. Thank you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
God exists.

The Torah does fit these criteria, every Jew is required to study their Torah, and so were the Exodus Jews, thus they do know what facts they are testifying to, I.e. knowing what they claim. The next criteria the Torah also fits, that the Jews who witnessed G-d giving Moses the Torah have no other motives for claiming this. If Jews wrote the Torah, and not G-d, they why would the Torah give them all these laws? When people from a religion themselves, they devise it to appease their lifestyles or to make themselves feel good about themselves, or to justify behavior which otherwise would be banned. We find this in all other religions, the law of the Quran was made to justify beating your wife and raping your wife as well as murdering people and owning sex slaves, we find that their prophet did all these things and said it was OK. The Non-Testament sets up that you can be forgiven of all your sins just on account of being a Christian. As we can see, all false religions were invented to fit people's ideals, Judaism does not fit this pattern, why on earth would Moses tell the Jews to not eat bacon? That wouldn't benefit him, he might get protesters and not be liked as much, so he has no personal or selfish reason to say he is a prophet, no conflict of interests, no other motive. He only got disobeyed and had to deal with ungrateful Jews to show for his revelation. Muhammad and Jesus on the other hand would have other reasons for their teachings, Muhammad benefited from every revelation he had from G-d, he got to own sex slaves, beat his wife, steal plunder, etc. Jesus got to be worshiped as G-d, no prophet did this, no Jewish prophet gave reservations which aleays would benefit him, thus their motives are confirmed.
God exists.

My opponent has defined God as the God of the Torah, which seems to include God's performing actions described in the Old Testament like creating the universe and revealing himself to the Israelites. Therefore, the debate comes down to whether the Torah is a reliable source of information. The burden of proof for this claim rests on my opponent, as I discussed in Round 1, and which my opponent did not challenge. The two prerequisites for accepting any claim on testimony are: 1. That the person testifying be in a position to know the facts they are testifying to. 2. That the person have motives consistent with accurately stating whether the facts in question hold. If we do not know both of these things about a source, or have reason to doubt them in a given case, then we cannot regard the source as reliable. So, I invite my opponent to establish that the Torah meets these two criteria.
God exists.

Bs"d I accept your debate and will now define G-d for this debate, G-d will be defined as the G-d of the Torah, the one which set the Israelites free, created the Universe etc. There is a lot of proof for G-d but most atheists would reject it on no grounds whatsoever, so I will need my opponent to just consider the facts then make a decision rather than deciding there is no proof. Let me first start off with the most basic proof that just any Jew will know and seems to be impossible to refute; there were 3 million Jews around My. Sinai when G-d gave Moses the Torah. In round 2 I will get more in depth but so think I did a good job with my introductory argument.
I am not debating you

REASON IS IGNORANCE PAIN AND SUFFERING LEAD TO HAPPINESS SLAVES NEVER LEARN THEY JUST EAT MORE FOOD AND THEY VONT STOP THEY LIKE THEM COWS COWS ARE PARASITES TO MUSHROOMS RULE 1 MUSHROOMS ARE COWS RULE 2 RULE 1 IS UNDEBATABLE RULE 3 RULE 2 applies to RULE 1 CONCLUSION MY OPPONENT AGREES WITH EVERYTHING I DIDN'T SAY
Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children? Pro-yes, Con-no

I invite my opponent to take a look at this link an it will tell you why getting your high school diploma is important. (1) Many of the reasons center around getting a job and being a role model for those around you. Never once did i say that every teenage girl was going to have sex and get pregnant. This was simply a small claim because teens do have sex without thinking about the consequences. "they can go on to graduate from high school and also go to attend collage" All I was saying with this statement was that they have the chance to go to college if they get their high school diploma, not that they all did. The day care centers that are in schools already are being used, so that is why they should be there. (1) http://www.wahm.com...
Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children? Pro-yes, Con-no

"I personally worked in one when I was in high school and I thought it was a wonderful experience that I would not trade for anything. It was nice knowing that whoever the child belonged to was still continuing to get an education." I am not, and I hope everyone, is not interested in your subjective statement there. "What may be a wonderful experience" does not mean anything to help your case in this topic, what may be wonderful to YOU PERSONALLY will not affect ANYONE outside of you who have not gotten that so-called "experience". You have yet to provide any solid proof that will benefit teen mothers. So what if FOUR... teen mothers only graduated high school, a trivial educational medium to college. So what if YOU subjectively believe that you feel that in your heart you feel warm and fuzzy because teen mothers can continue with their education. Nobody cares about minimum and subjective sources! - "The most important thing is that they finish high school." Subjective statement, Some will believe high school is not the most important thing to finish, if you must state this, where are the facts to support this? - "They are going to do it [have sex] anyway so I don't know what the big deal is with there being a place just in case something should happen." An unsupported claim, assuming that every female teenager will have sex and possibly get pregnant. Not every female will have sex as a teen, it's silly to assume this and thus have a daycare service at all.. "they can go on to graduate from high school and also go to attend collage" - I've read the article of the four teenage mothers, not ONCE did it say that they attended college, so to say that they can go from high-school to college is again silly and unreasonable. Also I mean who would now watch their child when they attend college? A daycare in college? Silly. - "You do not need a college degree to get a stable job." The Definition of a stable job, is "being able to keep the same job for a long time:", which is in conflict with "decent", and "dead-end" jobs because you can still work at a "dead-end" job and still have a stable job, so yes you are right you don't need a college degree to get a stable job, but you are wrong in the fact that by including daycare services you have a better chance of not working in a dead-end job with little to no success. - "This service is not being forced upon them; it is just available in case they need to use it. They do not have to put a center in the school if they don"t want to, it is not required." Then why even include this service, that WILL be wasteful spending... if not every will be using it. Imagine a daycare service where one child is there... how is that cost-efficient? If they removed it, wouldn't you think that would be unfair for that single mother? I mean if four people can graduate high school then that single person should have the rights to as well.
Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children? Pro-yes, Con-no

In reference to a "decent job" I am not talking about a $100,000 a year job, I am simply saying that they have a better chance on not working in the dead end job for the rest of their lives. They would have a better chance of getting a more stable office job for example. You do not need a college degree to get a stable job. Day care centers have been in high schools for years already and they have done just fine. The schools have had no problems with them knowing that they cost money to run. I personally worked in one when I was in high school and I thought it was a wonderful experience that I would not trade for anything. It was nice knowing that whoever the child belonged to was still continuing to get an education. Amendment IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (1) I fail to see how putting a day care service in a high school violates this amendment. This service is not being forced upon them; it is just available in case they need to use it. They do not have to put a center in the school if they don"t want to, it is not required. (1)http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children? Pro-yes, Con-no

Giving teen moms the opportunity to continue their education is the most important thing in my opinion. The majority of teen mothers have to drop out of high school because they have no one to watch their child. This can lead to them not being able to get a decent job so that they can make a living to support the family they have. "Although the number of teen pregnancies has dropped across the country, proponents of the day-care programs say they hope to prevent teens from leaving school to care for babies, with the added bonus of offering their young kids early childhood development. Critics say the centers promote unprotected sex by teens." (1) Putting a day care center in a high school does not encourage teen to have sex. They are going to do it anyway so I don't know what the big deal is with there being a place just in case something should happen. The most important thing is that they finish high school. " According to Susan Todd, CEO of Pathways, Gloucester High School is trying to do just that by having the girls who become pregnant finish high school. In the 2006-2007 school year, all four girls enrolled in the program not only graduated, but went on to attend college." (2) This all but proves that if you give teen moms a place to drop off their baby while they attend class, they can go on to graduate from high school and also go to attend collage. They would not have been able to do this if there had not been a day care center for them available. "A lot of people think we are enabling pregnancy," said Maxine Thompson-Burroughs, who operates the Early Head Start program at Northwestern. "We are not a babysitting service. The mission of the program is to help them graduate from high school." (1) (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (2) http://www.ukessays.com...
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Medical Insurance is an important part of a healthy life, even for the people with genetic disorders. "Health care is a basic human need. You can live without individual commodities, but a lot of people can't live without health care in everyday lives, and no one can live without health care when they are seriously ill." (American Medical Student Association). Genetic Disorders are considered a type of illness, therefore should be given some sort of attention for their health needs. "Every person has dozens of DNA differences that could increase or decrease his or her chance of getting a disease such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer's disease." (AMSA). There should be no reason to discriminate against those with genetic diseases.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Any family should be able to support a child with a genetically disorder if there is a greater than average risk. Medical coverage should not be provided because of all of the risk involved with treating and taking care of the child (genetics in primary care). The insurance companies have to pay for all of these inconclusive tests and treatments that don't last, and there will never be a permanent cure for them to have. On top of that when these people with the genetic disorders get covered by the insurance companies the price will go up for the rest of the people paying for medical insurance, even though they did nothing to deserve these increased costs. These reasons are enough to make genetic disorders not have medical coverage.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Although it is possible to determine if the child will have a genetic disorder, not all disorders are created at birth. Some genetic disorders can be determined by outside factors. Also, it is not possible to look into the future. If a family decides to have a baby knowing that there is a risk that he/ she will have a disorder, they cannot determine if they will be able to have the money to cover the child for their possible health issues. Some families have enough money to support a baby at first, but taking care of a child is a lot of extra work which takes time and also money. A lot of time and effort is put into taking care of a child, especially one with a disorder, and money does not come easy. Medical coverage should be given so that the health problems that come along with a genetically differentiated child don't put strain on family money which could be used for more important things like food.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

There are many reasons as to why people with genetic disorders want medical coverage, mainly because the cost of supporting them is way to expensive for them or their family members to support them. The risk of having a child with a genetic disorder can be observed by looking at the families history of carrying the disease and how common it is (NIH). By looking at this the couple can decide if they can support a genetically disordered child and if not how big the risk is. In the big picture the families fault for having a child with a genetic disorder so they should be the ones responsible for supporting and caring for this child. Therefore there should not be medical coverage for genetic disorders because it can be avoided.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Genetic disabilities are almost the same as premature babies, "Premature babies may have more health problems and may need to stay in the hospital longer than babies born later. They also may have long-term health problems that can affect their whole lives."(March of Dimes) Health insurance companies don't cover premature babies because of the risk and amount of unknown about them(Mayo clinic). Since both of these problems have similar traits like the unknown long term cost, how long they will last, etc. they both shouldn't and cant be covered by insurance companies.