BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

I don't know much about sulfur or aerosols or either of their effects on the environment and I don't intend to do much research so forgive me if this is more of a learning experience then debate. Just to explain, the mid century cooling period Stupidape and I are referring to is a time period from 1940-1975 where temperatures fell despite increased emissions of Co2 due to a major global economic boom after world war 2. Mid century cooling: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 emmisions: http://a-sceptical-mind.com... For my argument (that I posted in the comments): NASA says that sulfate aerosols only cause regional cooling. I quote, "...the cooling effect of pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas." https://www.nasa.gov... This means that global cooling could not have been caused by sulfur emissions because sulfur caused cooling is only regional . More evidence would be that the northern hemisphere, which was generally more industrialized then the southern hemisphere, would cool faster if the cooling was due to sulfur emissions. By looking at the temperature trends of the northern and southern hemispheres, we can see that this is not the case. Temp trends: http://www.giss.nasa.gov... Overall, sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling mid century because sulfur only causes regional cooling and the area that we would expect to cool faster did not.
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

One of my first global climate change debates my opponent brought up the mid-century cooling trend. Stating that a lot of oil was burned during that time period and that since there was cooling in that time period fossil fuels don't generate Co2. The time period was 1945-1975.I knew there was something wrong with the logic, but I couldn't tell what. Anyways, here's the answer. Sulfur emissions 0. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
A Trump Presidency

I will argue that Donald Trump is not fit to be President. His policies will be detrimental to the economy and the country as a whole, he himself does not possess the right character for office, and he lacks the ability to articulate himself, which is crucial for the President to have. This will be purely about Trump and will not include Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate.The first round will be acceptance, the second will be opening statements, and all further rounds will be rebuttals and extensions of points.No plagiarism, no forfeits, no trolling. Provide sources when appropriate.
Resurrection is superior to other explanations of Christianity's origin

My friend, I do not see anything in your responses that has any direct relation to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or why you believe that something else besides a Resurrection occurred. To be clear, this particular debate was not about the inerrancy of Scripture, which I do believe in, but was only in regard to did Jesus rise from the dead. If you could in your next round provide me with an alternative explanation, and evidence supporting it.
Resurrection is superior to other explanations of Christianity's origin

Yes! I do not know why my whole argument did not post i was so upset about it, but this is the remainder of my first argument: Nevertheless, Be mindful that Jesus was a carpenter, & he actually became as, "Woke", when he was actually in his thirties. But all of this information is still irrelevant if you are catching on... because why are none of us as "special" as Jesus? Were all the same we bleed the same, die the same and none of us habve supernatural powers. Its pretty sick that God would make us praise another human who was alive centeries ago and to make us understand that we are beneath this "Jesus" figure, whom is simply a messenger that anyone has access to be.. But if you are still a bible head, Psalm 82:6 says, "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' So we are actually all 'miniture' Gods... we know right from wrong. No one should tell you its wrong to kill your mom, you are born innately knowing that. And if you steal from someone and feel bad, you probably shouldnt be stealing. So with that being said, both you and I could write a book in the bible. For all the bible is, is man sharing their experience: "I did this and karma hit me this way so im just letting you know.." but we both know karma doesnt hit everyone 100% the same. So since we did not come out the womb with a man made book that you can buy out of a store......... you getting it yet? To pray and say "in Jesus Name" is as silly as saying, "In Obama's Name I pray" .. Nothing more nothing less. And let me not get started with the topic of 'Language'... as if the bird in the sky calls itself a bird... thats God. As if the universe calls itself universe... no, thats what we named it to communicate w one another to understand what we are referring to and talking about. God doesnt even call itself God... what is water and fire really?? So amazing.. but thats what we call it here on Earth. So the Bible..................... especially translated over so much time, Ever played telephone? And Why is our modern day lessons and history not as important as the outdated communal practices of the Bible, Quran? You think 500,000 years from now they will be studying what jesus did? Why not what we did? We evolve together as humanity.. its forever & ongoing. So just as the bible isnt completely irrelevant. Because we are clearly here to learn from one another. (I wouldnt know where to begin to make the pixels on a phone work.. but someone can think of that, but i have an eye for Art!) Its just as relevant as your mom giving you her best advice. And just for you to think about.. the fact that the bible even has ONE contradicting statement in it, should red flag you to just be a Good person. Or should we go back to the old testament and cover ourselves w goat blood everytime we want to repent our sins.... silly right? :)
Resurrection is superior to other explanations of Christianity's origin

I was once formally a Christian, for 21 years to be exact, so I am very familiar with its teachings. Yes there is a Jesus Christ. But there is also a Martin Luther King, Beyonce, and your Next Door Neighbor. The controversial debate about whether Jesus resurrected on the 3rd day is as irrelevant as the debate on whether water or milk is better to put in your oatmeal. The answer is it does not matter. But I can get into the politics: When Jesus said to "Follow Me.." , he was not saying, Follow ME, physically, he was saying, Follow this way of living, way of life. The lifestyle in which understanding that God is in you. Much understood that we are not THEE God, (because clearly not one of us brought ourselves here and if we die life still goes on without us so clearly none of us is in charge) .. but PART of the whole collective, because God works through all human, and not your phone case or soap in the bathroom. Nevertheless, Be mindful that Jesus was a carpenter,
Resurrection is superior to other explanations of Christianity's origin

Hello all, I would like to discuss the topic of Christianity's origin. More specifically, the resurrection as being the true historical origin of the faith. I am aware of several competing explanation, i.e. 1. The disciples went to the wrong tomb 2. The disciples were lying 3. The disciples hallucinated So on and forth, and I am definitely allowing my opponent to choose these traditional explanation, however, in this debate, I will of course be taking the side that Jesus indeed rose from the dead, but I will not restrict my opponent to just those theories I listed. If my opponent has some other theory, my opponent is more than welcome to put their theory forward . Please keep this within reason though. For example, claiming UFO's came and took Jesus' body is certainly something you have the freedom to argue, but I do not think this will be very productive. Also, this debate, no offense, is not being targeted to Muslims who believe Christ never died. That would be a debate for another time, as that is a debate over which religious text is correct (Bible or Quran) and thus outside the scope of what I am trying to accomplish. To summarize, my opponent may argue against the resurrection using an alternative theory of their particular belief. I will argue for the resurrection. Round two we will get into it, but the first round will just be a statement of my opponent's theory and why it is correct. Also, no videos. Thank you
The government should not fund the PBS/Big Bird

Hello, Thanks for accepting the challenge. I don't know that much about the "correct" debate format either so don't worry about it. I would argue that Sesame Street could and would exist without government support. Government money only makes up a fraction of Sesame Street's income. It was less than 10 million out of the more than 100 million it generates from merchandise sales etc. I agree with you that television shows can educate people. The fact that shows can educate people does not mean the government has to pay for those shows. There are shows that educate people on commercial networks. They are for profit channels that provide shows and documentaries. So the government does not have to fund television because the private sector can do it.
The government should not fund the PBS/Big Bird

I accept your challenge, please pardon my lack of knowledge on the debate format and be patient with me on what I might do to or say. Thank you 1. With the funding of the PBS station they are providing the public with knowledge, using this channel has allowed for the government to insure a strong organization that has been running for a long time to benefit the older and younger generations. Lets say Sesame Street, using this television show for the children provide kids who are not at school to develop their brains and help them grow intellectually. The government is trying to allow a trusted program to insure that our children of the future understand better and comprehend well on what they are learning about, by shaping our future they trust that they will make the better decisions and help our country generations ahead of us. 2. This is also applied with adults too, Using TV shows that capture the attention of the watcher and adding facts help the ones working today to be provided with more than they had learned in school. Say someone didn't understand cancer and the risks and problems that occur emotionally and physically, using these television shows has insured that when these people must face challenges like this that occur they will be prepared. good luck, cant wait for round two.
The government should not fund the PBS/Big Bird

I will try and argue that the US should not fund for the most part the Public Broadcasting Service {PBS} because there are far more important areas the government could be funding more like health. Yes it is a relatively small amount compared to many other expenditures but it is still a lot of money in real terms annually. The television station could be privatized. The only part of PBS I believe the government should fund are the news programs because of the importance {and expense} of the news and funding rural PBS stations because the commercial viability is more in doubt there compared to bigger markets.
Islam honors the last true muslim to leave islam

I beg your pardon, sir, but under Shariaha Law, the penalty for opposing Islam is torture, and death. I am a Christian, and don't want to know what would happen to me in Al Sayyid Arabiyya. As salaam u alikum, Yesua ehebic, but you just lied. I am not saying other religio political systems are any better, either. Only Yesua Al Masih is worthy to control the world, but He gave us free will for a reason. I understand and respect your right to be any religion, but why don't you admit the truth?
All of the 10 commandments are negative and prohibiting when they should be uplifting if anything

Honestly, I'd love to have a debate with you, but having a debate with someone who 1) immediately goes to insults once their opposition says anything back and 2) doesn't even get the commandments right, when they are the topic of the discussion, is impossible. I'd love to have a talk with you, but insults and now knowing the thing you're arguing about really don't work!
Gay marriage

I'd like to apologize to anyone reading this. You came here for a debate, and that's simply not what we delivered. I have refuted all of Con's arguments with peer reviewed scientific research, he hasn't refuted any of mine, because he can't. This debate unfortunately got bogged down on arguments regarding HIV, which I find disappointing, I was hoping to explore some of the many other angles surrounding same sex marriage. Fact: Places that have institutionalized discrimination against the LGBTQ community have higher rates of psychiatric disorders, including almost double the normal rate for anxiety disorders [5]. Not only does this place a higher burden on our healthcare systems, it's just plain wrong. Fact: Places that ban same sex marriage have MORE AIDS and HIV in their populations, not less [6]. Fact: "Psychological and psychiatric experts have agreed since 1975 that homosexuality is neither a form of mental illness nor a symptom of mental illness", and that "denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status" [7]. The bottom line is this: Banning same sex marriage only hurts our communities. If you're on the fence with this issue, that's fine. All that I ask of anyone that disagrees with what I've said here is that they do some unbiased research and use what they find to make an informed decision. I'd like to thank those that have taken the time to read this debate and listen to what we have said here. I won't ask you to vote pro, I'll just ask you to do what you think is right. [5] - http://www.eurekalert.org... [6] - http://www.academia.edu... [7] - https://web.archive.org...
Gay marriage

I was under the impression that we were debating whether gay marriage should be tolerated in any place, apparently pro just wants to focus on the United States, which I'm fine with. My argument on female gay marriage still stands however. Also, what negative effect would gay marriage have on AIDs transmission? When any couple get married they (mostly) become monogamous, banning marriage would only lead to cases where couples that would have otherwise only been having sexual relations with one person, would now be having casual sex with more. Getting married, whether gay or straight, leads to the elimination of the high risk behavior that exposes all of us to things like STDs. "Researchers estimated that constitutional bans on gay marriage which are currently in place in 31 states raise the infection rate by four cases per 100,000 people" (Milan, Francis, 09) [4]. In addition, legalizing gay marriage reduces the stigma surrounding homosexuality, removing barriers to access for HIV testing. An estimated 10% of people infected with HIV don't even know it [5]; reducing the need for these individuals to hide from society increases our ability to get them treated sooner and more effectively. ...If Con has any other reasons for denying same sex couple's the right to marry, I'd still love to hear them. [4] - http://www.sfaf.org... [5] - http://www.latimes.com...
Gay marriage

It's my hope that we can have a calm, rational discussion about this topic, which has in recent years become a very contested debate in the media. AIDs started on the continent of Africa; a population of chimpanzees had developed the virus. When the local human population hunted the chimpanzees, the virus crossed over through blood contact; the initial human infections most likely go back to the 1800s. The idea that there are more homosexual people with aids than heterosexuals is patently false. Globally, 34 million people live with aids; In Africa, Asia and India, HIV has always been and remains an overwhelmingly heterosexual disease [1]. Those regions represent nearly 30 million of infected persons, the United States has only 1 million infected [2]. If AIDs is primarily transmitted by the gay population, how has it decimated 12% of Zambia's population when gays only make up less than 3.5% of any population worldwide, especially when homosexuality is a felony punishable by up to 14 years there? Clearly, banning gay marriage didn't save them from AIDs at all. Furthermore, gay men only represent 50% of the gay community, the other 50% being lesbians of course. According to the CDC, there are no confirmed cases of HIV from female-to-female transmission [3]. That's not to say there aren't any lesbians with HIV, just that the number is so infinitesimally small that it can't even be calculated. Even if gay men accounted for a majority of HIV infections worldwide (which they don't), why would we use those demographics to deny the right of marriage to the other 50% of the gay population? If Con has any other reasons for denying same sex couple's the right to marry, I'd love to hear them. [1] - . http://www.thebody.com... [2] - . http://www.healthline.com... [3] - . http://www.gmhc.org...
We should withdraw from Iraq.

"1. Over eight out of ten Iraqi civilians are strongly opposed to the coalition's presence in Iraq. This means that allmost all Iraqi's are anxiouse to be independent of our troops. Iraq knows what's best for Iraq, not General Patreaus." My Response: My opponent keeps on repeating this same argument. He also hasn't refuted my rebuttal of this attack. This is a logical fallacy called: argumentum ad populum. I.e. Argument by the people. Essentially what the majority of people want doesn't make the action moral, right or justified. So what if 8 out of 10 Iraqis oppose troop involvement? I think they would care after Iran invades and Al Qaeda takes control. You must look at the long consequences of listening to such a call for withdrawal. "Even if CiRrO is right about our troops being best for Iraq, to prevent the slaughter of our troops is more important than preventing the slaughter of foreigners." My Response: There are 2 fallacies with my opponent's statement. 1. There would be even more killing of our troops if we have to go back in once we have left. 2. Universalize my opponents statement. He is saying we have the right to start a war, then leave to without finishing what we have started. Therefore, he has justified the creation of several unfinished conflicts, and thus leading to millions of foreign people dead. My opponent brought up our world image. What would our image look after that? "Just like Vietnam, we got into this war based on false evidence, and in our case, there isn't any yellow cake. We don't have a reason, for our best interests to stay, my opponent did not provide a reason for our best interest to stay except for a theory, without evidence, that leaving right now would only make us go back in, costing us more troops, and money. We didn't go back into Vietnam." My Response: My opponent says I only bring up theory. It is not theory. I have already claimed that that is the most likely thing that would happen if we leave. Therefore, drop this statement. "The fact is that the longer we stay in Iraq the more we spend, while my opponent says that leaving Iraq now would eventually make us go back in, costing more money. The spending and debt of this war has had it's hand in the reccession we are in. That debt is growing the longer we stay in Iraq, and it will stop growing when we leave. Not to make this a popularity contest, but seven out of ten Americans say that this war has had a negative effect on the economy." My Response: My opponent has dropped my point against this attack, it has gone unrefuted. Thus my opponent agrees with it. Soft Partition would be less expensive then immediate withdrawal. Extend this point. =============================================================================== Extensions (My Case): Contention I A. B. C. Contention II Contention III Extensions (my attacks): 1. Soft Partition 2. Argumentum ad Populum 3. Worse Consequences *For all these extensions of my opponent, I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
We should withdraw from Iraq.

One interesting argument in this debate is whether we should listen to what our troops say, or the civilians. As I predicted in round 1, one of Con's biggest arguments is the morality of the civilians best interests being wrecked by leaving Iraq at the moment. I have two counter arguments: 1. Over eight out of ten Iraqi civilians are strongly opposed to the coalition's presence in Iraq. This means that allmost all Iraqi's are anxiouse to be independent of our troops. Iraq knows what's best for Iraq, not General Patreaus. 2. Even if CiRrO is right about our troops being best for Iraq, to prevent the slaughter of our troops is more important than preventing the slaughter of foreigners. That brings me to my historical point. My opponent and I also are arguing with historical analogies to the Vietnam War. Durring that war, we lost 58,148 troops. Just like Vietnam, we got into this war based on false evidence, and in our case, there isn't any yellow cake. We don't have a reason, for our best interests to stay, my opponent did not provide a reason for our best interest to stay except for a theory, without evidence, that leaving right now would only make us go back in, costing us more troops, and money. We didn't go back into Vietnam. 3. Money. The fact is that the longer we stay in Iraq the more we spend, while my opponent says that leaving Iraq now would eventually make us go back in, costing more money. The spending and debt of this war has had it's hand in the reccession we are in. That debt is growing the longer we stay in Iraq, and it will stop growing when we leave. Not to make this a popularity contest, but seven out of ten Americans say that this war has had a negative effect on the economy. Reminder, 4,124 troops have died. Staying will simply make that number go up. Reminder, were at about three trillion dollars in debt thanks to this war, staying will simply make that number go up. Reminder, America is less popular around the world. CiRrO says that fact is trivial, but in fact it is important. The more friends one has to fight his\her foes, the better off he\she is. One of the arguments Kennedy used durring the famous Kennedy v Nixon debates was his concern of how people abroad viewed America. World standing, it is fair to assert, is a critical issue. Those feelings will grow worse the longer we stay. It is fair to assert therefore, that these issues of OUR best INTERESTS would be solved by withdrawal. Now I leave it to the judges. Are the lives of OUR troops more important than the lives of civilians? Are the opinions of whether we should stay in Iraq more valid from troops or oppressed civilians? Are our interests(including an economy in recession, deep in war debt) more important than finishing the job? Were the lives of our troops in Vietnam more important than those of civilians? These questions shouldn't be answered by the views of the judges, but by who they think had the edge on those topics. Once again thank you CiRrO for accepting my challenge to debate. I strongly urge a Pro ballot.