BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human induced global warming exists

He says CO2 is rising due to humans. That is not necessarily true, as I will get to later. He says temperatures are rising and on graphs it correlates with CO2. This statement is true. He says that there is correlation but also causation. He quotes his sources from Round 5 by saying, "Are charts that do show the correlation which is what I said in my argument." (Correlation). "The site does talk about the amounts of CO2 emitted per source, and that is what I proved it using." Where in here does it say causation? HE NEVER SAYS CAUSATION UNDER ANY OF HIS SOURCES. He says humans cause global warming. Again, no "causation" under his sources. Exactly, it takes decades to cool down. Therefore, the solar flares decreasing in 2007 may cause a temperature drop in 2017. He essentially advocates for my argument. He says he responds to Correlation is not Causation. Here is what he says in Round 3. "My analogy explained P1. There were times that were warmer than now. P2. Temperatures have risen lately, with a high correlation to CO2. [4] C. Because there were times that were warmer than now, the temperature rise is not due to CO2. The above logic is flawed, which is the logic my opponent's quote at 1) is based on. Correlation and Causation CO2 does not just correlate to temperatures, it also does cause global warming. "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5] Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7] I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1. In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures. I await my opponent's response." I may be wrong, but is he not using correlation is not causation to disprove my theories. He has his own analysis representing my side, but the fact is that analysis is correlation is not causation. Again, he supports my side. He says I ignore half his arguments. Is this not hypocritical? I asked him, in 2 separate rounds, to explain why temperatures have risen in the past. Guess what I got in return? Nothing. He says I don't tell you where his arguments don't link. Well, maybe the fact that he doesn't have the word causation when describing his sources is explaining why his arguments don't link. Vote for me Because: 1) He essentially agrees with me in that Correlation is not Causation is true. Therefore, we don't know if his arguments are true are not. 2) He advocates for me in talking about solar flares, and say that they take decades to have an effect. 3) He is hypocritical. He says that I don't respond to half his case when he does the same. 4) He doesn't explain why temperatures have risen in the past. This shows that global warming may be natural. Thank you. I enjoyed this debate and hope you did too.
Human induced global warming exists

So, not saying this is the deciding factor, but PRO does not respond to my definition of my role in BOP. Therefore, all I have to do is prove his arguments false. I'm arguing that my opponent has no definite proof to say that global warming is human induced. Here's what he says: CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans. Temperatures are rising. Humans are causing global warming. There are a lot of holes in this argument. First, my opponent never responds to the THREE examples of Correlation is not Causation that I give. Therefore, one must prove every step of the way why A leads to B leads to C, etc. Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate. Let me get this clear. I do not argue with the legitimacy of his stats. My sole concern with his case is that he needs to prove it links. He has shown me no differences with his global warming argument than with the three Correlation is not Causation examples that I give. He needs to do that. Therefore, vote CON emphasize proof and reasoning. If one does vote PRO, they must be completely disregarding the fact that with the same margin of time and same increase, temperatures have risen this much before (which PRO does not respond to) and are agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent. Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link. Thank you.
Human induced global warming exists

It looks like that my opponent has resorted to ignoring my whole debate. "He did not prove that global warming was human induced." That is true as long as you ignore my arguments about how Co2 is increasing, concede my arguments about that being caused by humans, don't read or argue my methane paragraph, skip over the rebuttal on solar flares (which is from Con's source, it seems that he doesn't even read it.) and omit my 447 character proof about how CO2 does not only correlate to temperatures, but it is also causation. Please read my round 3 argument: (sources in round 3) CO2 does not just correlate to temperatures, it also does cause global warming. "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5] Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7] I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1. In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures. Note the word "causes". Solar Flares I have proven that Solar Flares only have minuscule effects on the climate[1] with Con's own source, and he completely ignored that. Con did not address that argument adequately. Links "He spouts a bunch of sources, which may seem impressive, until one actually sees his arguments and links. Nothing links; he's just spouting a bunch of facts. Even if they do link, he contradicts himself by agreeing that Correlation is not Causation." WRONG, these DO link, and the correlation and causation part was refuted last round and yet was not adequately addressed by Con. I used the OSS foundation graph to prove that CO2 correlates with temperature, I put two Wikipedia articles to prove that greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and also causes global warming. (Most of the facts are at the top of the Wikipedia article, and they all do link.) Yet with this claim, Con has ignored all my sources and 447 characters of arguments. In fact, I have posted valid claims backed by respectable sources that do link to my arguments, but Con ignored all of it. Conclusion Con has conceded one of my arguments and either ignored or failed to adequately address the others. In a best case scenario, I win. In a worst case scenario, voters do not read any arguments from either side and vote for woever they want. Please, as a debater, read all my previous arguments before refuting them with false beliefs caused by not reading them, Con. [1]http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
Human induced global warming exists

I was not trying to disprove human induced global warming in that analysis of the graph. I was merely pointing out that in various points in history, things are the way they are now. PRO does not explain why temperatures have increased in the past; therefore, we cannot assume they are the way they are because of certain happenings. He says NASA is a space agency and that their graph proves that temperatures are rising. I agree, but again, as I have said and will get to later, Correlation is not Causation. Solar flares: He says solar flares have decreased now. Yes, for the past 3 years. If you look at my evidence from (1) last round, you'll see that it takes time for Earth's atmosphere to cool down after decreased solar flare levels. Perhaps we will soon see temperatures dropping. He doesn't prove anything with his comparative analogy to mine. It's just the opposite. By providing his own analogy, he accepts that Correlation is not Causation. Furthermore, this and none of his arguments actually prove that global warming is human induced. I do have BOP, but if I disprove my opponent's arguments, thus proving that global warming is not human induced, then that is sufficient to fulfilling BOP. In conclusion, my opponent tries to wiggle out of actually proving that all of this is connections. He spouts a bunch of sources, which may seem impressive, until one actually sees his arguments and links. Nothing links; he's just spouting a bunch of facts. Even if they do link, he contradicts himself by agreeing that Correlation is not Causation. At worst case scenario, again, we tie, and at best case (meaning that my opponent doesn't fulfill his burden of proof, basically fulfilling my burden of proof), I win. Please, as a voter, look at every individual arguments. Thank you.
Human induced global warming exists

His long-term graph does show that there have been instances in history warmer than today. He argues that that does not mean human induced global warming does not exist. However, if you look at his wonderful graph, you will see that the period of time between each "hike" in temperature is about the same. Furthermore, the increase in temperature has been steeper before. We both have Burden of Proof. Therefore, my opponent, to win, must explain why temperatures have increased in the past- otherwise we have no reason to believe that global warming is human-induced. I don't know where your link to NASA goes, but it is not NASA explaining that global warming exists, it leads to a page called What NASA does? I don't understand his analogy. Can you please explain that. However, I would like to give two more clear analogies of why correlation is not causation. 1) The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is. Therefore, firemen cause fires. This is obviously not true. 2) The more ice cream sales there are, the more people drown. Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown. This is also not true. A government site has said that solar flares probably led to the 17th century Maunder Minimum, when minimal solar flares cause there to be a cold spell over the Earth (1). At worst case scenario, this debate is tied as my opponent needs to show the differences between today's hike in temperature and other ones in history. At best, I'm winning because I clearly advocate for an alternative- solar flares. Thank you (1) http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
Human induced global warming exists

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Carbon Dioxide A)There was not much of a refutation given, but there is a long term graph at http://www.grida.no... . In the long term graph, there sure are times in the past that are warmer than today, but that does not mean that human induced global warming does not exist. Temperature My opponent states that temperatures have been going down, and said that environmentalist companies are hiding them. Therefore I will have to prove that temperatures have been gong up and not down, and that the companies are not hiding this. A)Temperature The short term graph at [1] has shown an increase in temperature with a high correlation with CO2 and little correlation with sunspots. [1] In fact, even NASA has found that the temperatures are rising as seen in the chart at [2]. In fact, the Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74"0.18 "C between the years 1906 and 2005.[3] B)Hiding The Truth Environmentalist companies are not hiding that the world is cooling, as even NASA, which is a government based space organization [4], confirmed that global warming exists. [2] Argument From My Opponent 1. Just because there were times that were warmer than today does not mean that humans do not play a role in global warming. Here is an analogy: 1. Person B got 100% on a test. 2. Person A got a test with 90% correct. C: The test done by person A is nonexistent. The above logic is flawed. Sun's radiation My opponent has stated that solar radiation is to blame for the climate change, however, most scientists agree that the current climate change is not due to solar radiation.[5] "While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species." [5] [1]http://ossfoundation.us... [2]http://data.giss.nasa.gov... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.nasa.gov... [5]http://www.livescience.com...
Human induced global warming exists

I accept BOP. Let me start off by saying: Correlation is not causation. Humans are not the cause of global warming, even though there is correlation. That's like saying "Since more people shop during winter, particularly during the month of December, cold weather increases shopping. " There is a correlation, but that is not the causation. (1) Refutation to Carbon Dioxide: A) I agree that carbon dioxide is higher than it has been in the past 800 thousand years. There's the problem with PRO's argument. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Just 800 thousand years ago, the CO2 level was higher. There's a big problem with his "short term" graph at [2]- it only spans back to the 1800s! That's like mean showing a graph that as November turned to December, sales went up, so shops should hope for cold weather, when in fact cold weather usually deters shoppers. B) He states that humans emit a lot of CO2. Conceded. However, people have been scared to death by the effects of CO2 emissions by environmentalist companies. Michael Harrington states that environmentalist groups have hidden the fact that temperatures have actually dropped, and that there is only one model that predicts the climate change- and it is against global warming (2). Other: A) Cross-apply Correlation is not Causation and that environmentalist companies exaggerate the findings on global warming. Argument 1) Paul MacRae claims that there have been periods of time that have had no icecaps (higher temperatures than today) and human civilization did not exist (3). Furthermore, Harrington provides an explanation for global warming. The Sun's Cosmic Radiation, which varies in strength, forms cloud formations in the Earth, absorbing more heat and keeping it in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide ever could (2). (1): . http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2): . http://www.redstate.com... (3): . http://www.paulmacrae.com... My opponent must disprove Harrington's theory then prove his to win. Thank you.
Human induced global warming exists

Resolution: Human Induced Global Warming Exists I will be arguing that the resolution is true and refute my opponent's claims, while my opponent will argue that it is false and also refute my claims. BOP is shared. No new arguments, only rebuttals in round 5. Carbon Dioxide a. Correlation to temperature CO2 is increasing. In fact, the level of it in our atmosphere now is higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. [1] Temperature records show that the temperature is increasing, [2] and that CO2 does have a strong correlation to the temperature,[3][2] without any apparent lag, as shown in the short term chart at [2]. b. Source of CO2 For the global warming to be caused by man, the CO2 has to be man made or have some kind of relationship to human activities. Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for about 40% of the total CO2 emissions in 2009,[4] followed by transportation at 31% in 2010[4], and industry at 14% in 2010. [4] As you can see, humans do emit lots of CO2. Other Greenhouse Gases a)Methane Methane has 25 times the effect on the atmosphere than CO2 over 100 years, [5] and it is increasing.[5] "In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution." [5] For this to be a part of human induced global warming, it has to have a human based source, and it does. Rice fields generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. [6] Municipal solid waste also produce Methane. [6] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://ossfoundation.us... [3]http://www.grida.no... [4]http://www.epa.gov... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The right to medical marijuana and to decide the drinking age should be left up to the states.

I have no opinion on medical marijuana. The drinking age, however, is a bit of a problem. The age restriction is to purchase, not to drink. Legally, you can drink at any age, but you must be 21 to buy. This means that a person in one state can simply cross the border and buy as much alcohol as he/she wants, and drink to his/her heart's content. To avoid this, states will begin matching their drinking age to those around them until the country comes to a consensus. Which is basically what we have now.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

My opponent perhaps does not understand that he is CON, or against the resolution. Because he has argued that the meaning of life is something besides reproduction, he has conceded. For the sake of argument though, I will still present a case: The purpose of life cannot be to make more life, just as the purpose of government cannot be to make government bigger and the purpose of UPS cannot be to make more companies. Further, the purpose of ants is not to make more ants, but their entire biological niche. The resolution is logical fallacy.
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

I think that students should not be allowed to use their phone more than 4 hours a day. I'm a student and most of my time in school, I've already use so much technology (tablets, i pads, sometimes phone) for my school work and in recess, I'm seeing lots of my friends using technology and texting their other friends which is like 2 meters away from them. This is not a very good problem for us (students) to over use these amazing technology. Personally, I use my tablets for school work and doing my other private things and it already took me 2 hours long. I used to have sleep over and my best friend is always on her phone texting and using Facebook, she hardly talks to me which is a very sad situation to be in. Nowadays, we actually hardly talk verbally and just texting each-other instead of word using their mouth talking. This is a very serious problem. Too much technology could damage your eye sight, your over using and trusting the technology too much which one day might kill you!!! T.T. Thirdly, Four hour a day is too much!!. For me, I go home at 4 and then do my homework...... which took me 3-4 hours ( with no technology with me) and than it's dinner time.....after that I use tech for about 1-2 hours (just to check my mails and doing online tests to help my grades) To wrap up about this situation, I would highly recommend you reading this and think about how much time do you spend a day on your technology (sorry for the bad spelling mistakes
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

Sorry, but you're just repeating your point again and again. I already said, young people are given a lot of advice on what NOT to do on social media. If kids and teenagers want to go on their phones at break then it's their choice, they should be allowed to, I know I do. If you're friend is texting strangers, maybe you should help her then? Tell her parents, try and talk to her? Students who know when to get off and when to get things done will do so, those who don't are just generally lazy and if they didn't have their phones, I'm sure they'd have something else to distract themselves with.
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

We actually have assembly like once in a month and class meeting twice a week. Yes, you might not just text your friends in school, you could do other things with your phone.... playing games, going on social media, watching videos etc..... How about this......If you are actually not really on your phone much because you are having an assessment to do, you heard this phone ringing about new texts or stories from snap chat and Facebook.... and it's from your best friend....If it's me, I would be not willing to care much about that, I would just leave it alone because I know for sure, if I read the notifications, I would be dragged in to the phone and forgot that I have to do my work :( If you are an adult, for sure you would know when is the right amount of time to stop right??? But if you are a teenager these day !!! You would be willing to be on your phone and exploring apps, in my school right now, every single recess time, I see 3/4 of the kids in school bring in these fancy phone like iphone 5s iphone 6 iphone 6 plus and stuff like that..... And you know what they did!? They go on social media and text strangers (I knew that from when I ask my class mate about the person she's texting to, she didn't even know the guy name and keep on sending love messages to him!!) And it cause her late to class and got to detention........
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

- You say that you don't use social media because of rumours of being cyberbullied and young teenagers being driven to suicide, but how many times have you been in an ICT lesson or a school assembly where teachers constantly show you videos of not exposing yourself in front of strangers, giving out personal information, sending your pictures to random people you meet on Kik or Facebook? - It's obviously very sad when an accident happens and young boys/girls feel that they have no other option but to end their lives but a lot of help is available to protect them from older attackers on the internet. Although if they actually listen to all the advice being given such as not giving out information and adjusting their privacy settings, it would help a lot and it's important for everyone to know about it. - Your other reason is understandable BUT I don't think it necessarily makes you lazy. Personally I've been spending too much on my phone the past 2 months during the holidays but I'm volunteering and helping out at a place nearby and even if I do spend all night on my phone, I know I have things I need to do and I can get up in time. - I definitely don't think that when I'm on my phone all I do is text my friends, in fact I hardly do that! I spend most of time going through posts on Tumblr or playing Agario (haha I know) or something. - People can choose to tone down but if they're comfortable with the amount of time they spend on their phones, it's their choice and most of you're reasons are not really reasons, especially about cyberbullying because that happens from both parts, especially when the 2 people involved are strangers as they've both chosen to talk to each other. If they know each other in real life such as school, they can go to talk to parents or teachers and when they don't, it's always sad to hear about those accidents and suicides.
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

Yes, We couldn't give up our technology in just one day...... But we should always try our best and not get distracted by the amazing technology. I don't use social media because I'm a bit too young for that. The reason why I don't use social media is because I've heard many rumors (and I think those rumors are true) about young teen ages got cyberbullies and killed themselves!! I dont want that to happen to me? And another reason why I hardly use my technology for other things is because it makes me lazy......When you're on your phone or other technology, you feel like there's nothing else to do except for texting your friends.