BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a nation can only be a super power only once

A couple of nations have managed to be super powers twice, with China getting there super power status back soon. The Spaniards have been a super power twice. Once from 1815-1889 and from 1230-1480 and 1492-1815. America is the current super power, being there first time and been in hold of it since the cold war against Russia. Germany was first a super power just before WWI in 1871 and had a colonial empire which had the second strongest navy in the world after Great Britain. Then was they considered as of one of the worlds super powers. They quickly regained it back in WWII when the third Reich was able to actually conquer all the regions of Europe. Germany could have successfully carried out "Operation Barbarossa" which was to conquer the European part of Russia. If Germany would of won WWII they could have taken over the whole of Eurasia and eventually landing in America. England was a super power when they started the industrial revolution and when was in rule of many nations around the world hence the saying "the sun never sets on the British horizon." timelines http://en.wikipedia.org...
God Exists

My opponent must show that Theism is more reasonable than Atheism, and I must show that Atheism is more reasonable than Theism (By "Atheism" I mean "Strong Atheism"). Thus, the burden of proof will be shared.The God we will be discussing is the God of Classical Theism. I take it on faith that my opponent will not hold me to the position that I must defend the notion that "nature" does not exist (Spinoza's God for example). No semantics. If one accepts this debate, then we both know what we mean when we speak of God within the context of the debate outline.My opponent will present a case for Theism in round 1 instead of the first round being for acceptance. In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"Good luck!
abortion

first of all, being pro choice does not mean i am "pro abortion". i don't want to force women to have an abortion. the fact of the matter is, i think its wrong to FORCE any woman that you will never meet to do or not do anything. and, by saying that you are "pro life", if you are not aware, means that you believe the government should not only have a say in a women's decision of whats right to do with her body and her child, but that it should have the only say, whether they know what the woman has went through, what the baby is going through, or what storms they will each have to weather through their lives, because if you did, you would find that more often than not, the woman knows more about what is the right decision for her and her baby than someone who will most likely never meet either of them ever will. and you will realize that they made the right decision.
PlayStation 4 Exclusives or Xbox Exclusives

If we're talking about just XBOX vs Playstation exclusives, Than XBOX exclusives are much better. Below are some of the MANY great XBOX exclusives. Sea of Thieves Forza Horizon 4 Crackdown 3 Forza Motorsport (1-7) Hello Neighbor State of Decay (1-2) Sunset Overdrive Cuphead Gears of War 4 Ori and the Blindforest Killer Instinct
PlayStation 4 Exclusives or Xbox Exclusives

We have so many more better games than just them We have uncharted(1-5) who have won over 200 game award, Each and everyone of them Last of us even more Horizon zero dawn Gran trismo God of war who just one game of the year 2018 Spider-Man Blood borne Last guardian Your games you said like the sea of thieves has very bad reviews and over all is a bad game and so did forzia gran trismo is so much better
cant smell a fart that never happend

Phantom smell is a phrase I'm using to refer to phantosmia. "Phantosmia is the perception of a smell in the complete"absence"of any physical"odor. The perceived odor can range from pleasant to disgusting. Although the causes of phantosmia are uncertain, it often occurs with neurological and psychological disorders such as"schizophrenia, mood disorders,Parkinson's disease,"epilepsy,"neuroblastoma, and frequent"migraines." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...) My argument: A fart can be perceived to happen without one actually happening. Therefore, a fart can be smelled that never happened.
cant smell a fart that never happend

Smell is just a way our minds interpret a response from our sensory organ, the nose. Your mind can interpret a smell whether there is something present to be smelled or not. In fact, a simple memory of a past smell can trigger your brain to have the same sense of smell as if you had it in front of you. Since our sense of smell is determined by electrical signals interpreted by the brain, (Source: The Matrix, and http://www.brainfacts.org...), smell can populate from absolutely nothing. Therefore, you can indeed smell a fart that didn't happen.
Global Warming Exists

My opponent has allowed me to experiment with my arguments such as the misleading quote by Tim Ball, and allow me to argue against an issue which I believe in. (No this does not mean I am conceding, I am showing that I am trying to argue both sides of the issue) While the increase of gases is true the cause of the gas increases are often what is debated. My opponent cites Wikipedia. org for scientific evidence, while convenient and resourceful at times can not address the possible lurking variables I have listed when taking such a massive study such as monitoring increase of carbon dioxide. My opponents statistics do not address the possibility of such lurking variables when normally when such studies are conducted they provide evidence satisfying skeptics of the validity of the results. Such as for example the study of sitting too long, "The data was collected as part of Australia's 45 and Up Study, a large, ongoing study of healthy aging. Strikingly, the elevated risks for dying from all causes remained even after taking into account participants' physical activity, weight and health status. " -. http://news.yahoo.com... But I digress, my opponent's arguments are well written and well searched, but they are essentially lacking the crucial evidence needed to show that the data found in my opponent's source addresses the confounding variable of these studies. Therefore I urge a con vote on the debate.
Global Warming Exists

"In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor. This deliberate omission of the other gases would imply that the existence of global warming would be man made as CO2 is a byproduct of consuming fossil fuels in cars, and . Also when these gases are ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, Water vapor is ranked first contributing 36-76% to the green house effect whereas CO2 is ranked second contributing 9-26% to the green house effect." Well, according to [1], water vapor is increasing too. The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750. The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source.[2] The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000"2009.[3] So all those gases are increasing! "My opponents contention, 'The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time' can not be used due to a variety of lurking variables within the data." No sources, no citations, not much other than "because it is so complex". So this rebuttal is void. "It seems that my opponent is also rather gullible in these debates. " Well, this is my first time debating a topic this serious. (my last topic was about tap water vs. bottled water) So I am not so experienced. [1]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming Exists

It seems that my opponent is also rather gullible in these debates. While I apologise for setting up the quote by Tim Ball to distract my opponent, I am rather pleased by the result of his vehement response which underlies the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) " X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. In other words because he used to advise oil companies then his credibility is false because he used to advise oil companies. Which is flawed logic. In addition "On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article." would be the perfect example of hubris over one's own ideals as Tim Ball over stepped his boundaries as have. One that often happens to many idealists and skeptics who are passionate about their ideals. My opponents contention, "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time" can not be used due to a variety of lurking variables within the data, such as the amount of consumption of fossil fuels, population increase, the amount of heat that enters the Earth via solar radiation, and other variables. In addition the studies do not prove nor disprove the phenomena of global warming as the phenomena of a world scale would have to be complex rather than simple as my opponent contends. In addition the general consensus is also following that of the previously mentioned global cooling controversy which was replaced by the current global warming controversy. In addition my opponent's rebuttal "if person A did a project with 2 others though they didn't help person A, you will say that person A's project is nonexistent." is a straw man fallacy. My opponent could have answered that other green house gases such as methane have also increased yet not at a significant rate, or could have stated something between the lines of CO2 may exceed water vapor in terms of contribution to the green house effect. Therefore my opponents rebuttal is void.
Global Warming Exists

1. "In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor." This does not prove that global warming is false. CO2 levels are rising [1], while the others are not changed. And co2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that the globe still warms. For example, if person A did a project with 2 others though they didn't help person A, you will say that person A's project is nonexistent. 2."The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."-Tim Ball Just because someone questions a theory means that the theory is wrong. This is flawed logic. Plus, CO2 is not just assumed that it is greenhouse gas, it is one. " In the earth's atmosphere, it acts as a greenhouse gas which plays a major role in global warming and anthropogenic climate change. " [2] And you "deliberately ignored" this part of my last claim: "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time" Plus, Tim Ball, which is someone you cite, is actually backed by oil companies! "Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science." "On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article."[3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.sourcewatch.org...
Global Warming Exists

Basically my opponent's rebuttal is, "You think that global warming is false because humans are not the only factors of climate change. Climate change is just the climate changing, it could be warming or cooling, and it will still count as climate change. You are basically saying that "ham sandwich" is not a correct name because there are many other kinds of sandwiches." and "Plus, on my first round I stated "Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation." Where did you see it has to be man made in there?" My opponent is committing an informal fallacy called Onus probandi. "Onus probandi " from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion." -http://en.wikipedia.org... "The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."-Tim Ball The controversy surrounding the existence of global warming is denoted from the effects of human induced climate change, such as the green house effect in my opponent's evidence from Wikipedia, "... Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[20] This increase in radiation forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels..." In addition my opponent is deliberately ignoring the other green house gases of ozone, methane, and water vapor. This deliberate omission of the other gases would imply that the existence of global warming would be man made as CO2 is a byproduct of consuming fossil fuels in cars, and . Also when these gases are ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, Water vapor is ranked first contributing 36-76% to the green house effect whereas CO2 is ranked second contributing 9-26% to the green house effect. My opponent is also misinterpreting the data of the final stages of the Little Ice Age, though that is expected because the extreme drop occurred in a span of approximately 200 years and the graph does not go to a smaller set. Therefore my opponent's rebuttals are false, and connote the existence of human induced climate change instead of the existence of a natural climate change that may or may not be accelerated by human activity.
Global Warming Exists

You also said that the little ice age was from 1300 and 1870 . Here is your argument: "While the phenomena of Climate change does occur in reality, to label the effect of said climate change as global warming would be false as climate change is not limited to merely human induced climate change. A minority of scientists have spoken out against the existence of global warming such as Dr. Tim Ball a climatology Ph.D who was also skeptical of the so called Global Cooling in the 1970s. In addition the Earth is currently warming from a Little Ice Age (LIA), which would in turn refute claims that the Earth is heating up at an increasingly unnatural rate, as solar radiation will also influence the amount of heat trapped in the ozone layer. Also on a side note if the Little Ice Age had occurred during the 20th and 21st centuries, it would have been referred to as Global Cooling as the projections shown in http://www.eh-resources.org...... would have shown a dramatic decrease during the final stages of the little ice age. This in turn also refutes the existence of global warming as the evidence cited in increasing temperatures are similar to the downward trend shown in the little ice age." Well, according to the chart from[1], there were still colder than normal years before 1976, however, the temperatures skyrocketed after that. You said that the little ice age was from 1300-1870, however the chart starts from after the little ice age!(1950) You think that global warming is false because humans are not the only factors of climate change. Climate change is just the climate changing, it could be warming or cooling, and it will still count as climate change. You are basically saying that "ham sandwich" is not a correct name because there are many other kinds of sandwiches. Plus, on my first round I stated "Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation." Where did you see it has to be man made in there? Plus, the rate of the rise of the temperature is actually speeding up. "The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13"C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years."[2] "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the WMO."[2] "An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. " [3] Plus, the co2 levels and the temperature are rising at the same time, according to http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com.... [1]upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png [2]http://www.sciencedaily.com... [3]http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...
Global Warming Exists

I accept your challenge. To also avoid semantics I will also define some terms The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period and can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. -http://www.eh-resources.org... Climate change: a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts. My argument; While the phenomena of Climate change does occur in reality, to label the effect of said climate change as global warming would be false as climate change is not limited to merely human induced climate change. A minority of scientists have spoken out against the existence of global warming such as Dr. Tim Ball a climatology Ph.D who was also skeptical of the so called Global Cooling in the 1970s. In addition the Earth is currently warming from a Little Ice Age (LIA), which would in turn refute claims that the Earth is heating up at an increasingly unnatural rate, as solar radiation will also influence the amount of heat trapped in the ozone layer. Also on a side note if the Little Ice Age had occurred during the 20th and 21st centuries, it would have been referred to as Global Cooling as the projections shown in http://www.eh-resources.org... would have shown a dramatic decrease during the final stages of the little ice age. This in turn also refutes the existence of global warming as the evidence cited in increasing temperatures are similar to the downward trend shown in the little ice age.
Global Warming Exists

I'll define some words to avoid semantics. Global warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. [1] Greenhouse gas: A gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.[2] This is my actual argument: "However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle."[2] CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has been increasing. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect, which heats our planet up. CO2 exists naturally in our atmosphere and keeps the planet warm. Now that it is increasing, our planet will get warmer. "The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions."[3] And this chart shows the temperature is increasing: http://upload.wikimedia.org... REFERENCES: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
dirtyness in city

hello..everyone..this topic is relating to dirtiness in city that everyone is watching but could not do anything as proper action is not taken. dirtiness is may cause for the growth of many diseases that is caused because of this wastage. dirtiness can be easily seen everyone where there is disposal of waste, in the villages there is proper disposing system. in cities very people are educated but they do not use their brains and throw the wastage like plastics, vegetable waste, unwanted material that is not used in house on streets which is further harmful to cows as they eat plastic ans die as result. the dirtiness is also seen when the drain hole is opened to clean the drain men who cleans the drains leaves that wastage outside their in streets resulting to growth of various mosquitoes and houseflies that spread diseases like malaria and many other which is harmful for all people leaving their.the authority who are responsible for picking this scraps and wastage does not come to see that place for long time. dirtiness can also be seen at public places like sweets shop restaurants temples marriage lawns and many other places where there no proper cleanliness. government should take proper regarding this particular topic. people show throw their household waste to big dustbin which is kept by government. we people should maintain the system of cleanliness. if the city is dirty the tourist line whill be affected which will lead to lesser income and lesser popularity of city.
Uniform should not be banned

This was a horrible debate....so I'll review the points brought to the table and where they stand.My points:1. Uniforms are expensive and sabotage families who rely on thrift store clothing. Unrefuted2. Uniforms don't fit the weather. Unrefuted.3. Uniforms don't acknowledge religious or cultural values. Unrefuted. My opponents points:1. Unforms are cheap. Already refuted. See Round 3.2. "You can wear a jacket". See round 33. Distraction to other kids. See round 34. Shows social status. DittoI don't think there is much more to this.Good night ladies and gentlemen.