BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

Thank you for the chance to debate this topic. I am an avid believer that climate change is mainly man made, at least now. Your first point was how even though data shows a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature, carbon emission is not the largest factor. But according to the World Meteorological Organization (as well as NASA and countless organizations and scientists), CO2 is the largest factor of global warming. This study included natural substances like water vapor. The problem with CO2 is that it is a very abundant greenhouse gas which takes a long time to dissipate from the atmosphere. 65% of global emissions are CO2 emissions, making it by far the most abundant man made greenhouse gas. Even though it isn't as abundant as water vapor, it is much more effective at trapping the Sun's rays. Now, greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming, while the most effective and very abundant greenhouse gas is CO2. Here are some graphs: From NASA, this is probably the most infamous graph as it shows just how drastic CO2 emissions have gone up. (It won't let me post photos, so here is the link) http://climate.nasa.gov... Enlightening, isn't it? Now this concerns temperature rise at the same time as CO2 rise. http://climate.nasa.gov... This link should have the graph close to the top on the right hand side Not only that, but a massive 97% of all scientists agree global warming is man made. ------- Your second point was that temperatures were higher in the past than they are now (specifically, during the time of Roman civilization). While there definitely are natural cycles that rise and lower, Earth's temperature is accelerating at a much faster rate than any natural cycle before, and shows no sign of stopping like a cycle would. This is again, because of man made emissions, and the majority of those are carbon. ------- Your third point was that global warming is mainly due to sun rays hitting the earth and heating it up. While sun rays hit the earth and that is what causes all weather, the amount of rays stays basically stable like the earths orbit. So when greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, they trap sun rays and warm the earth. So the evidence shows clearly that global warming is mainly people driven, although natural cycles may contribute to the increase. The evidence shows clearly that greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming. The evidence shows clearly that CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat. Therefore, the evidence shows that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. Sources: https://www3.epa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... https://www3.epa.gov... https://www.wmo.int...
American Pop singers should earn less than Eastern Pop Singers (K-Pop, M-Pop, J-Pop, etc)

In my opinion, Pro has a good argument supporting their talent ad discipline, but fails to prove they should earn more. I am not necessarily saying they are worse, I am saying that they do not appeal as many people so they earn less money inherently. A musicians pay is based on their appeal to the public and eastern pop singers have failed to capture the global attention and fame that American Pop singers get, so therefore they deserve less because they do not generate the revenue that the Americans do.
American Pop singers should earn less than Eastern Pop Singers (K-Pop, M-Pop, J-Pop, etc)

I believe the Asian pop singers should earn more than the American Pop singers. K-Pop stars work for long periods of time and are trained at the early ages of 10-14. These pop stars are the best of the best, as they audition through stages. In addition, most Asian pop stars can not only sing, but also dance. Compare this to the typical American pop star who simply sings or engages in a half-hearted "dance". In addition, Asian pop stars are put through a vigorous training course for years. To emerge famous, some pop stars in their trainee years had to fall asleep at 2:00 A.M. or sometimes wake up at 3:00 A.M. to refine their dance and vocal abilities. The result? The ultimate and disciplined pop star. Example: Justin Bieber. He rose to fame. How? Through YouTube, looks, and a girly voice. Look at what he is now. A silly "pop" star who has been emigrated out of the United States. Through the training in Asia, pop stars grow up to become truly disciplined singers who do not get in meaningless trouble. Take a look at bands EXO, BY2, Super Junior, Girl's Generation, BEAST, etc. Thank you.
minecraft is da best game ever! thug boss

Okay first minecraft is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! accept first!!!!!!! its so f un and i play it everydayy!!!!! so fun!!!!!!! im so smart and eveyone is so jealous cuase i get to play it for 3 ours evryday! i play on a lot of servers and in one im a admin yay1 i get to see if there is hackers i hate hackers so anoying!!!!!
minecraft is da best game ever! thug boss

"please do not use bad words on this.." Sorry, it's just I do not like it when people falsely accuse me of random things, such as a fake profile... :/ "the key word is "tend". u have no statistics or known fact that people use acronyms." It is true that I do not have a number to represent how often the word "lol" is used. However, the fact that "lol" along with other acronyms were added to the Oxford English Dictionary signifies that internet acronyms are widely used. If they were not used commonly, then they would have never been added to a dictionary. "i am amused at how you know so much about minecraft, its ironic" I do not see how this is ironic. The fact that I know things about Minecraft does not mean that I think Minecraft is the best game ever, therefore, there is no irony here. "you have no statistics and you are just assuming that people think its pointless... proof please?" You have no statistics either so your point is invalid. "league of legends in your opinion is a better game. its not always about you u know....." With this logic, that must mean that it is not always about you either. Therefore the motion that minecraft is the best game ever is simply your opinions, and not a fact. Pro has failed to explain why Minecraft is "da best game ever!" Because of this, I beg of you to vote con! Also, play League of Legends!
minecraft is da best game ever! thug boss

please do not use bad words on this... i never said anything about creepers or skeletons or zombies or spiders. u are lying. and you never rebuttled my building point... the key word is "tend". u have no statistics or known fact that people use acronyms. i am amused at how you know so much about minecraft, its ironic you have no statistics and you are just assuming that people think its pointless... proof please? league of legends in your opinion is a better game. its not always about you u know.....
minecraft is da best game ever! thug boss

Refutation: "1. idk why u are using sombody else's picture for ur profile pic. i found it on google. .. .. ." Thats my picture you idiot. .. I know its on google. .. It was from my tumblr. .. "2. minecraft is so awesome its educational and its encourgeing building" IS miecraft really educational though? Pro is saying that teaching kids that green creatures called "creepers" make hissing sounds at night, then blow up. Also, minecraft teaches us that zombies and skeleton archers are real things. And are spiders supposed to be the same size as humans? "3. ucan communicate with other peple" You're spelling is terrible. Please learn English. Also, you can communicate with basically anything nowadays. People who communicate in video games tend to use acronyms such as "lol" or "gtg". These terms are grammatically incorrect and teaches kids in the wrong way. "4. u feel good about urself when u play" Do you feel good about yourself when you die to mobs, then forget to set your respawn point? Didn't think so. "5. it is creative" It really isn't that creative considering the fact that its based on survival, and so many games are survival oriented. But I do agree that it has some creative aspects, such as the graphics. "6. so fun! ! !1 i am a admin so boss! !! !" Some people find survival games boring. Also, you may only find the game enjoyable because you are admin and have certain commands. Other people who do not have these privileges probably think its pointless. A better game then minecraft would be League of Legends for example. League is a more exciting games because their are many more options for gameplay. Each game is unique, since you are usually queued with new people each game and new champions as well. Ill probably go into the game more in the next round :)
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

My point has been on two parts; 1; There is no way a new species could exist or be bred to exist, as it would never be capable of attaining dominance over homo sapiens. 100 of a new species would become inbred within a few generations and develop complications. There is no way this new species would be deemed superior to us, let alone to the point where we should grant additional rights above others. 2; There is no reason to leave Earth anyway. If we have the technology to terraform, we have solved the energy crisis. As you referenced Star Trek, Earth is a utopia in the original series. Overpopulation is an issue that will be dealt with in the next few years too. This video is a long one, but I recommend it not just as a source for the debate, but as an interesting video. There will be no need to emigrate the world, and if space travel becomes a hobby, it will not be reserved for a new species. My point about us conforming Earth to our liking is about the fact that we need not conform ourselves. To suggest creating a better breed of human is.... well, it's disturbing. Eugenics is brought to mind when discussing the subject. There will never be a need to change the species so long as we manage our resources wisely, and if you depict a world with space travel and terraforming, then we already have. On a side note, the Outer Space Treaty states that no country can claim other worlds as its own. Terraforming would then be an impossibility. http://www.unoosa.org... I hope you enjoyed the debate and I hope to debate again soon, Duncan.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

i'm not sure why con continues to argue about how we've conformed the earth to ourselves, instead of us conforming to the earth. we're not talking about the earth any more, space expansion. we could devise a way to expand, and create a better breed of human, that isn't unhealthy. it would take much longer to do it, but it could be done. one possible example, we send one hundred of our best. they are allowed to breed so as to keep it healthy. then they get to a thousand and send a hundred of their best. and repeat. i'm not an expert on this, but know those numbers aren't far off for what could be considered healthy, and it's not the exact numbers but the principle involved. it might take longer to terraform a planet after planet. but if they ever got to a point where they started sending star ship after starhip out like star trek, you can see that isolation of species will relatively quickly start to occur. and if those ships were somehow able to produce more ships, which would really be pushing our technology, sure, it would tremendously speed up isolation and advancement of the species.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

My source is the Biology study I did for my exams last month. Let me explain Natural Selection in relation to Evolution. When a mutation occurs in a gene, it alters the genotype, or genetic makeup of the organism. This in turn alters the phenotype, or physical output of that genotype. When a new phenotype appears which gives the organism a clear advantage over others, the organism can then live long enough to reproduce and spread their genotype further. Evolution is the mutations occuring, but Natural selection decides which stay. Now that's I've explained that, let me point out that nothing threatens us to the point where a single mutation will be able to gain sway on a planet with over 8 billion people. Evolution has adapted us near perfectly for our environment.Evolution always happens, but it never stays unless it's allowed. Let me point something out. We are species which bites its own tongue. Our appendixes explode and through DNA replication, we produce thousands of malign cancer cells each day. We are a flawed species, but over the last few thousand years, we haven't changed much genetically. What advantage could possibly hold sway over the entire world? Now, I've been wondering; How do you define superior to us? Mentally? Physically? There wouldn't be a large number of these people; it would be a single genepool to draw from. That's not healthy in terms of reproduction if you sent them at the forefront. If we actually discuss leaving earth and terraforming a new world, we would send our brightest and most skilled, not our best genetically. See you next round, Duncan.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

con doesn't explain why we would necessarily be gone. if we expanded into space, humans could still be one earth, and humans could be on several other planets, while advanced hominids diverge further out in time and space. this doesn't require past species to die out, as with dinosaurs and mammals. when we are dealing with astronomical time, it is possible to have hominid speciation from homo sapiens. it might have to be deliberate, but it could surely happen. we have advanced humans go to mars. they have advanced offspring. we have even more advanced of them go somewhere else. it might be too impractical, sure, i can't deny it. and you have a decent point, at least on earth, and it's hard for us to envision space expansion.... but we tend to make the environment fit us. we don't try to fit to the environment. the weak among us don't die, and they breed. this leads to nothing much in terms of macro evolution. but with space expansion, it is one would think surely possible.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

I hope this debate turns out to be engaging and fun for both sides as I finally have the free time to return to DDO. Now, under the mask of complex language, my opponent is raising the issue of how to treat new species, Novum Hominem, New Man. This is an intriguing issue, but here's the flaw. If a new species arrives, we'll already be gone. Natural selection is a complex issue that I could talk for a full paragraph on due to the last month of study I've returned from, but to put it simply, the previous species must be effectively wiped out for the new one to take dominance. Mammals didn't start getting bigger until the dinosaurs were wiped out by falling temperature from ash clouds. The arrival of the new species will be in the form of one new member, a mutation from humanity. Problem is, we're not exactly being wiped out by anything, population numbers are rising faster than ever. If we discovered a new species, a person distinguished from homo sapiens, how could we even say they were superior? New isn't superior. Now, onto your scenario; leaving a dying solar system in a billion years, with the aim of terraforming a new world. The crew of this ship would need to be a multicultural, young, talented and co-operative group, capable of rebuilding society anew. A completely new species would not be born, rather, human would be adapting through natural selection, while not evolving, the two concepts working but not strictly in tandem. I could try and throw in some weak humor here, but ultimately it's the same as asking; if rocks could talk, would we have to give them rights and stop mining them? They can't talk, they will never be able to, leaving the question seemingly pointlessly deep. See you next round, Duncan.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe eventually man will have to expand off of earth, or we will go extinct. wouldnt it be wise to allow first the most advanced of us to leave and expand civilization? this very well could (and perhaps should) eventually lead to hominid speciation. we could have a loyalist approach to it, and argue that our species should be of higher priority than allowing or promoting our decendants to be of superior quality, albeit a different species. but why should we take this approach? are they not both our decendants either way? sure, maybe we can try to both save homo sapiens, and allow or try for advancing homind species. but if we have to choose a focus, isn't it better to focus on a superior decendant?
The Glass is Half Empty and Half Full

Regarding A: You are correct. I recant this statement. B: "You claim that it will never be at the exact level, but because of the uncertainty principle, it is entirely possible for the glass to be at the exact 50% level at some point or the other," This is actually false. Considering the enormity of the quantum vacuum in the water, huge for all of you who don't know, there will be millions of particles popping into and out of existence every second. This will never stop. They just keep popping and disapering. My opponent's statement would be valid only if, I repeat only if, the quantum vacuum in the water was a Planck length by a Planck length by a Planck length (massively small). If this were the case then it would be very unlikely that anything would pop into and out of existence but considering that there are literally millions of millions of billions of Planck lengths^3 there will ALWAYS be particles popping into and out of existence. There are no exceptions. "even for a splitting millisecond" False, see above. (BTW the particles pop into and out of existence every 10^-43 seconds) "hence, the possibility of the glass maintaining that level at the time it was photographed and weighed stands. " Not true at all. The weighing and photographing of the water will take seconds to minutes so even if we go with the assertion that for 10^-43 seconds there is no extra particles (which is false seeing as there always is) the cup would still be being weighed and photographed and no camera has a shutter speed fast enough to capture the image in 10^-43 seconds. In conclusion there will always be particles popping into and out of existence regardless of what my opponent says. The sheer magnitude of the quantum vacuum in the cup nullifies his claim that there will be a time when nothing is popping into existence. There are always particles popping into existence hence the glass is NOT half full/half empty. Case closed.
The Glass is Half Empty and Half Full

A. I admit that using a ruler or other measuring device of that sort would cause changes in the human perception of the true amount. However, by using a precision scale, we can calculate the weight of the water. Place a cup of glass (X) exactly like the former, and write down its weight. Next, carefully place our very first container (Y) in the scale and get its weight as well. By subtracting X's weight from Y, we get the weight of the water. Then we get the empty cup and fill it completely, and divide the water's weight by 2. Because the former is filled halfway though, the numbers will be equal, thus proving a completely different method of measuring without the use of devices that trick the human eye. B. You claim that it will never be at the exact level, but because of the uncertainty principle, it is entirely possible for the glass to be at the exact 50% level at some point or the other, even for a splitting millisecond. Hence, the possibility of the glass maintaining that level at the time it was photographed and weighed stands. Conclusion: By using the method above and the probability that the glass is at the exact level because of the uncertainty principle, my opponent's arguments are nulled. It is all too possible to happen, unlike the "never" we're told. Finally, an accurate scale gives clear numerical values that cannot be misinterpreted thanks to the crystal-clear numbers on the LCD screen. Evidence that such high-precision instruments can be seen by the Ohaus Explorer Pro EP32001 High Capacity Precision Series [1}. This truly was intriguing, and I look forward to debating my opponent in the future. I rest my case. [1]- http://www.oldwillknottscales.com...
The Glass is Half Empty and Half Full

Well since this cannot be argued from a theoretical standpoint I will take this on from the scientific standpoint. I will be using quantum mechanics. I argue that: a) We cannot truly know the volume of the glass and b) it will never exactly half full/half empty A: The methods used to measure it will change the volume of water. For example if we were to stick a ruler in the water to measure it we have changed the water level due to displacement. If we were to hold the ruled to the side of the glass we would not get an accurate reading due to the fact that the light will be refracted and magnified and the water level will appear higher/lower. B: The glass will never be one or the other due to a property called quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations rely on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the fact that in a given area energy is not constant hence energy will well up from the quantum vacuum. [1] This means that particles can spontaneously come into and out of existence for no reason at all. This is happening all the time on quantum levels everywhere including in the cup of water. Bearing this in mind we can see that particles can and will pop into and out of existence constantly inside the glass thus changing the volume - although not by much - thus it is not safe to conclude that the glass is "half full" or "half empty" simply because the physical laws of the universe do not allow things to remain static. Conclusion: Bearing this in mind one cannot say with certainty that the glass is either half empty or half full thus my opponent's claim of certainty is false. The glass is not half empty/half full at the same time. In fact it is never half of anything. It is either more full or more empty! [1] Greene, B. ""Quantum Weirdness"" The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. Print.
The Glass is Half Empty and Half Full

This is my first debate here actually, so I picked a simpler topic to start off with. Theoretically speaking, this is the glass of water in question. Suppose it is exactly at the 50% mark, with only air and water in the area it can be filled. http://mauifeed.com... Argument 1- The glass is half full. Because the glass is at the exact level of 50 percent occupancy, it is filled with water halfway up. Argument 2a- The glass is half empty. At 50%, there is another half. Therefore, the other part must be filled. Argument 2b- Further explanation If we start from the fact that the glass is half empty, the conclusion that there's half of it filled is logical. Argument 3- Filled with what? Not counting the materials necessary to make the glass, the available area to "fill" contains two base ingredients- Water and air. Thus, because the sentences end halfway through, we can conclude that its ambiguity regarding what is taking the "half". I wish my opponent best of luck in this debate. Let's make this a courteous yet intriguing skirmish.