BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

I would like to thank my opponent for providing another opportunity for me to argue both sides of the global warming controversy with more leeway than the previous one which had me restricted to disprove its existence. I would also like to ask my opponent who has the BOP of this debate or if it is shared. Definitions: Definition of threat; 1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage 2: one that threatens 3: an indication of something impending -http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of pollution; 1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of pollute; 1 a : to make ceremonially or morally impure : defile b : debase 1 2 a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of greenhouse gases; any of various gaseous compounds (as carbon dioxide) that absorb infrared radiation, trap heat in the atmosphere, and contribute to the greenhouse effect. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Contentions; Anthropogenic global warming is not a threat to humankind, and to label the effects of a natural phenomena as harmful because of human influence is false. Global warming is not caused by pollutants but greenhouse gases (CO2) and solar radiation, unless my opponent is referring to the 2009 designation of CO2 as an air pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The designation itself is unusual considering that CO2 is a byproduct of respiration, and technically the designation could be interpreted as drop dead to humanity and to any living organism. kind of ironic for an agency tasked with balancing ecological concerns with human interests. -http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

Definitions Anthropogenic an"thro"po"gen"ic/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/ Adjective: (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) Originating in human activity. Global warming an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 3 days to post 4 rounds 8000 Characters No insulting Start argument in first round
Statistics: Outlier Data

I would like to first thank the Instigator for this topic as I have had an interest in Statistics for a while now and its amazing power to allow us to better understand our world. I am familiar with the basic concepts outlined so far and I am confident that within the time limit for each round I will be able to address any issues you may bring up using more advanced statistical concepts, so please do not feel the need to hold back. I will also preface this debate by saying this is my second debate and my first is still in progress but from the looks of it this will be my first real debate on this site in that the rules of debate are adhered to so I am very excited to engage in this discussion with you. I accept the rules and definitions as stated with the caveat that Pro please clarify the definition of significant(not statistical significance where p>.05) in the resolution so that I may better understand the parameters of the debate. Good luck to my opponent and I look forward to our debate.
Statistics: Outlier Data

Resolved: Statistically speaking, Outlier data is almost equally as significant as Data that lies within the confidence interval, when desiging various social, economic, and socioeconomic systems, among others, that deal with massive amounts of data.My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.DefinitionsOutlier Data- Outlier Data is data that is way far away from the mean (average) of the data. Outlier Data will be defined specifically as data that lies outside of a 95% confidence interval.This means that outlier data is will have a z-score with an absolute value higher than 1.96.Statistic 1 demonstrates a mean of X, with standard deviation Y.Related data Z is collected. If Z > 1.96y + X or Z < -1.96y + x, then Z is considered outlier dataIn laymans terms, Outlier data is the incredibly unlikely, but still very possible.Essentially, Pro will be arguing that when one is designing a system, one must consider the implications of outlier data just about as seriously as one must consider the implications of data that lies within the confidence interval.
to be consistent, a bible christian from today living in old testament times, should stone folks

Pro is correct, God commanded that certain violations be punishable by death. Some he did command to be death by stoning. I did not intend anything from my previous response to be construed in any way contrary to this. However, my point was that in the case of stoning, the community was the hands of the government, just as the modern-day executioner is the hands of the government. Thus it was a governmental function to stone people to death for a violation like murder. This was not individual action. God did require the death penalty. Generally to all mankind, God lays out this principle in Genesis 9:5-6. Specifically to Israel in the Law, God requires it for multiple offenses such as murder and rape. So yes, death was required by God. My argument was not that the government required the death penalty, but that the government at times determined the method of administering the death penalty. There are several times where God says that the violator must be put to death, but he doesn't specify how. Sometimes God did specify how to put the violator to death, but not always. That would leave the decision to the government. In conclusion, though, we cannot ignore the differences between the Old and New Covenants. I believe I covered that pretty thoroughly in my previous speeches, so I will not repeat myself needlessly. But this point still stands (being unaddressed by Pro) and thus exposes the fundamental flaw of the question itself. My thanks to Pro for a fun debate and a chance to brush up on the topic myself. :) It's been a little while since I considered this sort of thing, and it was a real pleasure to debate you.
to be consistent, a bible christian from today living in old testament times, should stone folks

well i suppose it starts to get into th\e best response to this that i've heard. but, just because govenment might say death is required, doesn't mean God has to say it. the bible says that the LORD required it, and even jesus said that God said it. i question whether teh government required the deaths to begin with. "the govenment says to, the govenment is from GOd, therefore, it's commanded" might work, if that were true, maybe? i ighly question if that's true, though.
to be consistent, a bible christian from today living in old testament times, should stone folks

con missed the point of the debate. i'm arguing that you should, if you lived in OT times, have stoned people, if you are a bible christian now. i'm not arguing that we should still stone people. basically, if you lived back then, woud you stone people as required by the bible? how can you say no if you are a bible chritian? even by con's misguided points, it says that was the covenant that you would have to abide by. thus, you would have to stone them. most would say no, they would not stone them, and act as if this was the proper response, but then give no reasons.
Emperor Penguins should be in zoos

I don't believe we should have Emperor Penguins in zoos because it would waste too much money. Currently, the only place they live is the Antarctic, which would make them very difficult and costly to transport. They are also very fickle about their environment, and global warming makes it harder and harder to sustain penguin environments. Refuting your argument, Emperors are very similar to other penguins and it is unnecessary to have them. In conclusion, Emperor penguins in zoos are too costly.
It is morally wrong to rape and murder prostitutes.

Con's forfeiture was due to circumstances beyond their control, and they should NOT lose conduct points for it.1. "Killing" vs. "Murder".This is ultimately a semantics issue. I agree with Con that it is okay to kill another person, even a prostitute, if it is necessary to defend yourself or somebody else from physical harm. However, I maintain that it is wrong to kill them in all other circumstances, and always wrong to rape them.2. Exactly how is prostitution like rape?3. Con seems to be confusing morality with reality. It is wrong to rape people, but people still get raped. There isn't really a connection.4. Regardless of why men visit prostitutes, that doesn't give them the right to rape and kill them.
It is morally wrong to rape and murder prostitutes.

I was not able to post my argument for round 2 because my internet connection was lost. Though I was not able to post, it cannot be taken against me. Debate should be decided on arguments not on technicalities. So please judge this debate based on arguments. I did not post an irrelevant argument. What I did was to rebut my opponent’s contention that being human, you cannot be killed or raped anymore for whatever reason. He believes that his contention is absolute, which of course, not. This the fallacy of general rule. He destroyed exceptions to the rule. Further, he is trying to confuse us with the ambiguity of the words. It is clear that when I said killing, I was referring to murder. He committed the ambiguity fallacy. There is similarity between rape and what a prostitute does. I am talking about the end result, not the prior (which is asking for money) How about those countries that do not regulate prostitution? Prostitutes there are not that safe as you might think. It does not mean that a married man goes to a prostitute that he is no longer happy with his marriage, it may be a fact that by nature a man is like that.
It is morally wrong to rape and murder prostitutes.

My opponent has put forth a good argument, but it has a few flaws: "There are many instances in which a person is justified to kill a someone (prostitute) in self-defence." This is true, but also irrelevant. "Murder" involves the intentional killing of another human being for reasons other than self-defence. The premise is that it is immoral to MURDER prostitutes, and so Con must prove that murdering a prostitute is morally permissible (or at least morally ambiguous), and/or that prostitutes aren't human, and/or that killing them is never intentional. "Seriously, rape on a prostitute is okay because anyway, she is used to it. She will be more happy if you rape her." Prostitutes are not asking to be raped. They are asking for money. Politicians, on the other hand, ask for both. "They are also providing sexual diseases and danger." In countries where prostitution is both legal and regulated, the prostitutes are generally safe and clean, and get regular STD check-ups (as required by law). If anything, visiting a prostitute is safer than picking up a girl in a bar. "Sometimes, they destroy a family when a married man engages to a prostitute." Men in happy marriages don't visit prostitutes. Why would they, when they're getting plenty at home? Any man who's fvcking hookers is already dissatisfied with his marriage. "Please let us also kill prostitutes because politicians have a lot of prostitutes. They have infected the politicans as well and vice versa." It's the "vice-versa" that is the problem.
It is morally wrong to rape and murder prostitutes.

Challenge accepted. I know that my side is difficult to prove because it is hard to justify rape and murder. However, I decided to accept the challenge for the sake of the debate. Firstly, I am aware that killing and/or raping someone is wrong. But this is not always the case as I will show later. Rebuttals against my opponent’s opening arguments: 1. It is my contention that prostitutes should not be raped and murdered because they are people too, and it is immoral to rape and kill people. -- This is a weak reasoning. Not because you are a human being, you can no longer get killed or raped. There are many instances in which a person is justified to kill a someone (prostitute) in self-defence. Likewise, rape can also be justified for example only you and a woman is left on earth, and you want to save the human race, so you must rape her. LOL. Just kidding! Seriously, rape on a prostitute is okay because anyway, she is used to it. She will be more happy if you rape her. :D 2. Also, it is ungrateful to kill prostitutes, because they're providing an incredible service to all the lonely, undesirable men of the world. ---That is true that they are providing service to lonely men. To add your statement, they are also providing sexual diseases and danger. Sometimes, they destroy a family when a married man engages to a prostitute. See? That is the world with prostitute- a world full of sexual diseases. 3. And finally, because it's better to kill politicians instead. ---No reason given. Well I think it is obvious. But please let us also kill prostitutes because politicians have a lot of prostitutes. They have infected the politicans as well and vice versa.
It is morally wrong to rape and murder prostitutes.

Rules:1. Shared BOP.2. Sources don't have to be credible, provided they are relevant.3. No wanking.Opening argument:It is my contention that prostitutes should not be raped and murdered because they are people too, and it is immoral to rape and kill people.http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk...Also, it is ungrateful to kill prostitutes, because they're providing an incredible service to all the lonely, undesirable men of the world.And finally, because it's better to kill politicians instead.
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

You say my raps are generic but you can't even rhyme You still don't get it so I'll tell you one more time You're getting destroyed like an old man facing a pro wrestler in his prime When you face me and God you're commiting a crime My raps and far superior Your cute poetry is way inferior You're sitting in hell while I'm chilling in heaven, clearly you're in the ulterior I'll beat you in this rap battle then rip out your anterior I'm squashing your lines you childish scrub Beating you is like throwing a dirty child into the tub We all know the ladies prefer me at the club My d!ck is like an anaconda, yours is a f*cking stub Your insults suck balls, just like your mom While I'm in heaven you'll be on porn.com Your parents wanted to kill you because you look like the shambling corpse of Larry tom I'm done reading your crap, I've already dropped a holy bomb. https://m.youtube.com...
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

At least I can diss with themes of more varietyAnd if you took a closer look at what the Bible says about hell,You'd realize how little you're saying and not be blinded by pietyAnd at listening fundie garbage like yours makes me wish I WAS in hell.I'd trade places with Justin Bieber before accepting your God*faces audience* and look who's telling me to think twice after he accepted indoctrinationLike it was a pair of black lungs required to immigrate in a superior nationWhen Jesus predicted the history of your religion,He had an extra 10 rethoughts about his sacrifice.You're the Lil' Wayne of DDO. You're a Christiatard who can't write a non-generic rhyme to avoid being an Aztec sacrifice.
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

Cute rap... Lol sorry God I lied, it's a piece of crap Now you're facing my amazing lines while you're coming up with scrap When you made this debate it was setting your own trap Your rhymes are so bad you should just die When you're in hell Satan will squash you like a fly With that considered you should just forfeit this debate, no lie Then go home to your mom and cry Next time you should think twice before facing a boss God will just pick your puny body up and toss When considering you, Jesus Christ had second thoughts about dying on the Cross You should simply count your rap as a loss
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

"Your" lyrical style is way too mainstreamUsing hell threats like all the other Christian rappers on this siteThat's lamer than putting sour cream on whipped cream.You're not saying anything. That sh*t burns in hip-hop light.||And I won't take a diss about my bedtimeFrom a guy who'd go straight back to bed if his wife asked you.I stay up til 10:25 playing games on my phone but my bedtime's 9.I live with my parents, don't want a girl, and go to church with them, but I'm still more independent than you.
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

I'm a good Christian, definitely going to get into Heaven While I'm out partying with God you'll be at your mom's house, gotta be in bed by seven How many girls have rejected you? I count eleven Maybe if you accepted God he would help it leaven I'll be waiting up there, laughing at your pitiful life Crying with tears of happiness when I can go to heaven with my wife You should have accepted God, now it's going to cause you strife I'm going to Heaven anyways so I might as well end you with a knife What's wrong Pro, looks like you aren't doing so well God's like a cop chasing you down and it looks like you fell Now I'm going to throw you atheist scum back into your cell Satan is waiting for you down there in hell.
Agnostic atheist rapper (Pro) VS Christian Rapper (Con)

You're a zombie summoned from the (brain) dead by SatanTo ruin your own god's reputation While your busy sucking Billy Graham's d[bleep]kI'll be giving your mom a CNRK. When she wakes up, you'll think she's sick.If our lives are games, mine's Minecraft and yours is CoDI'm only limited by my mind. You're limited by the "word of God" You only give God the credit for your good life cause you're insecure.You blame your troubles on you because you tryna be pure.
My Webcomics Are Better Than Yours

Since you did not present a comic in Round Three you should present two in Round Four. Unlike "Outsider," "Girl Genius" is indeed quite complicated, and it is nearly impossible to keep track of all the characters, but those were not characteristics I specified the comics were to be rated by in issuing the challenge. Here is my next comic: http://entireprizeenterprises.com... Zortic is a very charming character, and the characters are much easier to keep track of. I hope you enjoy it. (If you find yourself on a page with a single panel, just click on that panel to get more.)
My Webcomics Are Better Than Yours

Oh yeah it's graphic that was a typing error and it's good you noticed it. Having good graphic doesnt make your web comic better. Your story must be interesting, easier to read and understand and that is not the case in what you posted. I believe people are going to choose the winner at the end of the debate. As I said earlier, my web comic is easier to understand,it is shorter too and the black and whit graphic is great. What else do you need?
My Webcomics Are Better Than Yours

Yes, we do not need to spend much time analyzing your comic either. I am sorry for you that you have such poor comics to read. I will do my best to read it for you because you are my friend but it is really terrible. Also, it's "graphic," not "graffic." It is good you accepted this debate since now you will at least have some decent comics to read. This next one, "Girl Genius," has won three Hugos. http://www.girlgeniusonline.com... Agatha is an excellent superhero and role model, and the cat is priceless. The art is outstanding. I sincerely hope you will enjoy it.
My Webcomics Are Better Than Yours

My Webcomics are better than yours. You can't find better Webcomics than I can. Rated on artwork, characters and storyline. One Webcomic is presented in each of rounds 2 through 4, along with the reasons you think it is the best. First round is for preliminaries only, no arguments. Last round is for arguments only, no new comics. No semantics. Or, join... http://tech.groups.yahoo.com...
My Webcomics Are Better Than Yours

It has been a pleasure participating with you in, surprisingly the first Webcomic debate on DDO. May there be many more. You only presented two comics, not three. You should be DQd for that. And they are both about gamers (see comments.) Good luck at the polls. Since you can't vote, I won't either. Anyway, here's a few more good comics... http://tech.groups.yahoo.com...
The Universe is Finite

You claimed that everything is finite. I"m sure your familiar with the four dimensions, all four are subsets of our universe. You say time is a measurement of the decay of particles but I don"t necessarily find that to be true. I define time as the infinite progressive sequence of events. I say the universe is lorded over by time in the sense that it is the most important dimension. You say that there was no time before the universe existed. I also find this to be untrue, I think time is always progressing and it doesn"t need to rely on the existence of other dimensions in order to foster itself. Thanks for the response though, I can tell you are very knowledgeable and clearly have thought about this a while. I think this debate is founded on a series of questions that aren"t answered at the moment, so finding any rational conclusion proves to be near impossible. This is just my pure speculation on the topic.
The Universe is Finite

Thank you for your response, very insightful! Before I begin, may I suggest this article : http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... It's a good read on this matter if you have time to waste. You are under the assumption that the universe itself is an entity, ruled by time ("the universe is lorded over by time"), however, before the universe came to being, there was nothing, not even time. Time came about with the expansion of the universe, as the universe is merely the space (or environment) where matter exists and decays. Understand that "time" as we know it, is an illusion; it is a man made construct to "measure" or more precisely predict the decay of energy/particles. https://www.space.com... The link above deals more with the illusion of time than space and the universe being finite, but it's a good read on our perception of time and dimensional space. You also contradicted yourself when you said "time is the infinite and a definite subset of our universe, so if the universe is lorded over by time", how can the universe be lorded over by time, if time is a subset of the universe? I do think you tried to make it sound scientific without any knowledge or background in Set Theory or Discrete Mathematics/Relational Algebra (all deal with sets, subsets, and relationships). Though I do like the way you presented your ideas, they simply do not fit. You try to make your argument sound philosophically correct by induction, when no supporting evidence (or base evidence for that matter) of the relationship between time and the universe was given. Through your argument, if I had to make a counter argument parallel to your approach, I would use induction to simply say that all matter is ruled over by time, and since time is "infinite", then all matter is inherently immortal (forever lasting, infinite). This is obviously a flawed argument. Why should the universe inherit any properties from anything? The universe is expanding, into what? We don't know, and it's hard to theorize on something that we have little knowledge on, but the universe is expanding, moving, this is a fact. Nothing that expands is infinite. I look forward to reading your response.