BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

Here is the definition of a building footprint: . http://www.answers.com... WTC 7 might have fallen slightly sideways but it did not lean very far at all as both your own pictures and the video prove. Here is a link to the official explaination for why WTC 7 came down: . http://arabesque911.blogspot.com... Their opinion is that only fires and not exlosives or damage could have brought the building down in the way it collapsed. This doesn't make any sense. Here is another article that references a new phenomenon as to why WTC 7 collapsed: . http://rawstory.com... These official explainations do not mention the damage that you do as a main cause of the collapse. In fact, some of the "official accounts" seem to contradict each other or site different reasons. If the collapse of a WTC 7 was so simple, wouldn't the explaination be the same no matter who investigated? Wouldn't it be easy to understand? There are enough questions surrounding WTC 7 to provide more than reasonable doubt, which means that your case and your thesis are not affirmed.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

Responses: >> "Now in his quote on the documentary he said "pull it" not "pull them". Why would he refer to human beings as it? " In that case, as I explained above, he was referring to the team of firefighters. The entirety of the confusion surrounding the "pull it' remark stems from the use of cables to literally pull down WTC5 and 6. In the case of WTC7, the Fire Department made the decision in conjunction with Silverstien to pull the team from the building. >> "When a building collapses from the top down the top part of the buiding must pass over the footprint of the building in order to be affected by gravity." This is obviously false, since a building will collapse from the top town (or appear to) if supports under the collapsing section fail. >> "WTC 7 fell nearly straight within it's own footprint," As I displayed in the last round - this is false. WTC7 fell at an angle to the south and spread debris out over a considerable area. http://www.debunking911.com... http://www.debunking911.com... >> "Now you'll notice that the damage to the building you showed was at the bottom, however, you'll notice that the building collapsed from the top down" This article (http://www.structuremag.org...) explains how the failure of Column 79 at a lower level of the building could have caused the collapse of the entire thing. Recall that the construction of WTC7 includes several cantilever beams at the lower levels that, if failed, would bring down the entire building. So even though the top of the building was not as damaged, the problems at the lower half of the building could still cause a top-down collapse. >> "There was nothing evil going on, just a building owner that decided that it would be better for the workers to destroy his empty building." I agree that there was nothing evil going on, but I maintain that WTC7 collapsed naturally. Here's a couple questions for those supporting the controlled demolition theory: 1) Why use explosives on WTC7, but not on 4, 5, and 6? 2) The objection to using explosives on 4, 5, and 6 was that it would be unsafe for workers to enter the buildings. WTC7 was damaged far worse. Why send workers into 7 to plant explosives? 3) Why plant explosives since many people that had been inside the building and seen the damage said it was going to collapse on its own soon anyway? 4) If using a controlled demolition, why not purposefully topple the building to the south into the rubble from WTC1? Why bring it straight down, causing more damage to the surrounding buildings? AFFIRMED.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

Larry Silverstein's background is in real estate and development. He won a bid to construct WTC 7. He has obviously worked with construction crews in the past and would likely know the lingo. Now in his quote on the documentary he said "pull it" not "pull them". Why would he refer to human beings as it? The quote where he said they decided to pull the building is not part of the same quote as the "pull it" line. He could have easily been referring to someone else, a construction crew that worked with his company perhaps. Now when a building falls on it's own it does not fall straight down in it's own footprint or even close to it. When a building collapses from the top down the top part of the buiding must pass over the footprint of the building in order to be affected by gravity. This did not happen with WTC 7 as is clearly evident in the videos. WTC 7 fell nearly straight within it's own footprint, something does not unless it is a controlled demolition. Here is a video of building's been imploded: http://www.youtube.com... Now you'll notice that the damage to the building you showed was at the bottom, however, you'll notice that the building collapsed from the top down, within its own footprint. There was nothing evil going on, just a building owner that decided that it would be better for the workers to destroy his empty building.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

the video you posted was the same as I posted. As you can see in both videos the building follows the path of most resistance and falls in it's own footprint, despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane and was only the victim of fires. This is unprecidented in the history of steel frame buildings. As far as Mr. Silverstein is concered, for more than a year he refused to explain what he meant by the term "pull it". It was only after several news articles came out pressuring Mr. Silverstein that he came up with the story that "pull it" meant to withdraw fire-fighters from the building. However, the term "pull it" is a well known term used in construction to demolish buildings, it has never (that I could find) been used as a term to evacuate a building. Here is another video: http://www.youtube.com... This one shows a BBC report of the collapse of the Soloman Brother's building (WTC 7) before it actually did collapse. Now the BBC claims that they were not told what to say, though they claim they no longer have copies of their reporting on 9/11. They also claim that this was merely a mistake, however it does seem odd that neither the reporter in studio nor the reporter in New York city would recognize the error. Especially since the building was clearly visible behind her.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

Silverstien's quote regarding a decision to "pull" building 7 refers to evacuating the firefighters in the area, not demolishing the building. The quote clarified by Silverstien's spokesman: "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building." WTC7 was a raging inferno for several hours as they attended to other buildings - the interior structure destabilized, especially the cantilever beams that held the building over the power station below it. And after the towers collapsed and destroyed the south side of the building... Interior damage to the building on lower floors weakened the building enough to collapse (http://www.911myths.com...). A proper collapse video of WTC7: http://www.youtube.com...
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

WTC 7 was, in fact, demolished and did not collapse due to damage from the other buildings. As point of fact, this demolition was not nepharious in nature. The building was empty and the demolition occured to free up room and visiblitiy (the smoke from WTC 7) for the rescue workers. The reason the government didn't just admit they did this, which wouldn't have been a big deal, is because they didn't want rumors to spread that they demolished the north and south tower, which I believe they did not. Evidence: 1. In a PBS documentary Larry Silverstein admitted that he and the New York Fire Department made the decision to demolish the building. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. ' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. " In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: ". .. we're getting ready to pull the building six. " . http://whatreallyhappened.com... Jon Miller admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was a good thing for the rescue workers. 9/11/2001 ABC News broadcast: John Miller: "If there can be any good news about a day like today the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, the building they were so worried about injuring rescue workers, has freed up rescue workers to go into the area and they are now moving in in groups of 20 and 50 as their teams are designated. .. " Peter Jennings: "So the principal danger to the rescue teams has been eliminated. .. " John Miller: "The biggest danger has literally removed itself. " 2. Fires have never before lead to the collapse of a steel building, until WTC 7 (if you believe it wasn't a controlled demolition) and the collapse of the building was very consistant with controlled demolitions. . http://www.youtube.com... I'm sorry, I don't know how to place videos on here, but this link takes you to a youtube video of both the west broadway and CBS shots of the collapse of WTC 7. These videos show a fall that is very consistant with controlled domotitions. Here is another video, which shows the damage from WTC's 4, 5, 6 as well as the demolition of WTC 7. It is clear that the damage to WTC's 4, 5 and 6 were all worse then WTC 7 and yet, although they all were destroyed, the bases of all their buildings remained intact, not so with WTC 7. . http://www.youtube.com... I will save the rest of my arguments for the later rounds.
Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

The proposition on offer is that the building known as WTC7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 as a result of damage sustained from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building. ***************************************** There are 2 primary contentions that argue against the story above. 1) WTC7 collapsed very quickly - in about 7 seconds. If you actually watch a video of the collapse, it takes more like 12 or 13. The collapse begins in the upper penthouse, which falls several stories into the building before the rest of the building begins to collapse. This internal damage accounts for not only the apparent fast fall of the rest of the building, but also for why it fell into its own footprint. 2) There was very little damage to WTC7. The answer to this is simple. There was little damage that could be seen in the majority of news reels due to the angles of the shots. Here's a good one of WTC7 burning out of control (http://www.debunking911.com......). A quote from the NIST team - "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." Photos like this (http://911research.wtc7.net......) show exactly how the damage happened... AFFIRMED.
Should hunting be banned

"There are ignorent (sic) people who believe that hunting is wrong and they reason 'Why kill them when you can just buy them from the store' I find this disturbing that people do not even recognize where their food comes from." Meat products are now largely farmed and not hunted. "In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000, with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council.According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way."- http://en.wikipedia.org... "By hunting animals nearly to extinction, everything above the animal in the food chain is put in danger. "- http://www.copperwiki.org... As you can see, hunting can be replaced with farming and we still get enough food. "if you do hunt, you should use all the meat, all the hide, and all the bones or antlers you can." Hunting is not really necessary as you can farm animals instead, though I do agree that hunting should have limits.
Should hunting be banned

I am pro hunting. I believe that if you eat meat like a large percent of people in this nation, you are killing animals. There are ignorent people who believe that hunting is wrong and they reason " Why kill them when you can just buy them from the store" I find this disturbing that people do not even recognize where their food comes from. So I believe that hunting should remain legal on one condition- that if you do hunt, you should use all the meat, all the hide, and the all the bones or antlers you can.
Communism can never work

I think you're mistaken on what communism is. This is partly my fault as I did not put the definitions in the debate description. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are collectively owned by the proletariat( the working class). Communism is the final stage of the marxist transition from capitalism to communism. "Communism is a good idea but it can never work because if everyone gets paid the same amount then there is no incentive for people to work hard". Communism as I stated before is a moneyless society. People would not be payed at all. Instead the incentive to work would be for other reasons. The money motive is only intrinsic to markets. For the vast majority of humanity's existence we never used markets to exchange goods and services. We lived in hunter gatherer tribes where what was captured and what was made was shared among the tribe. You have a job because you need money to sustain yourself but you would no longer need money to acquire what you need to survive because it would be provided to you through the commune. "Also if the state owns everything then people can never feel safe as they could lose everything". Again, as i stated before communism is a stateless society. There is no government. I don't exactly understand what you mean by "lose everything" even if the state was apart of communism. " Also with communism leaders who instigate it should be prepared to get the same wage as everyone else and that so often never happens. " Again, with the abolishment of money wage labour would also be abolished. The leaders of the revolution didn't want more money they wanted to get rid of the profit motive as it is harmful to everyone.
Taco bell should have the cheese sauce dispenser outside the kitchen and available to the public

Taco Bell makes the dankest of all cheese sauces. It's disrespectful enough to not have it available in stores, but to under cheese the food, and continuously under cheese it when you ask for extra and get charged extra, and then to even lessen the amount of cheese you get when you order a cup? This is outrageous. Let's change the world.
Smoking is not a "right."

I fully respect and understand your opinion. And before I begin I would like to say that I am an ex-smoker and when I did smoke I was careful about not bothering people. I did this because I believed that just like a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body and homosexual couples have a right to marriage I had a right to smoke. I would like to refute your claim about legislation indicating that people have no such right. DOMA prevented homosexuals from marrying and using your understand verifies that they had no right to such. As we all know this is false and legislation is not about natural or concrete rights it is about perceived rights. Furthermore, I can only conclude that while a smoker may have a right to smoke their right to smoke is not supreme over a non-smokers right to clean air or right to a healthy body. Those two rights are supreme over the right to smoke as the smoke will drift and cause infringements on non-smokers rights. However, I have a problem when the government tries to force laws on public areas where smoking is not a major issue like parks or parking lots. In some cases people can be alone with no one around in a park or outside a business but would still be fined.
Smoking is not a "right."

Frequently, smokers will contend that non-smokers/anti-smoking proponents are infringing upon their "rights." To be certain, people have a basic "right" to choose unhealthily, and cigarettes are not prohibited. However, there is no law protecting their "right" to use such products; by passing legislation prohibiting smokers from using in specified public areas, no guarantees of freedom are being suppressed. You may still use your drug, but you are disallowed from doing so in certain locations. I can get naked, but I cannot do so at the mall. I can scream, but I cannot do so at the library. I can drink, but I cannot do so while driving. You can smoke, but you cannot do so while in certain public areas. I would further contend that all people should have a "right" to clean air to the extent possible. Pollution is a separate matter. For purposes of this debate, I would like to see legislation indicating that non-smokers should never be subjected to or inconvenienced by the substance use of a nearby smoker.
Smoking is not a "right."

I know all powerful commands and laws come in groups of multiples of 5 but let's simplify what you're claiming. First, preserving clean air and pollution are shocking similar so let's just combine 5 and 1 to clean air and decrease littering. Next, 2 and 3 are very close so let's cut that down to just what 3 says. And 4 just plain won't work as an ex smoker I know that it will just make me smoke more in one designated place instead of smoking less. So were down to two points of preventing pollution and littering along with attempting to decrease health effects on non smokers. Most smokers don't just throw down their cig. buds if there's an ash tray within a seeable distance it will be placed there. Besides littering is already a fine and doesn't need to be specified to cigarettes. Now, as for pollution a hummer will pump out as much pollution as a cigarette will in ten minutes just by driving by. So treating this as a universal law we must ban any vehicle with as great pollution as a hummer. Moving in to the next portion of your argument (preventing effects to non-smokers) I have already stated that exhaust fumes are just as harmful as exposure to exhaust fumes and a few other activities that involve releasing gas like burning trash. So not only should burning trash be banned but we should ban driving cars with less than 20mpg. My last point will be that if a person wants to smoke, as smoking is an addiction and can by urge make you break the law, they will smoke. Just as anti-drug laws have almost no effect on drug use; smokers will smoke as they please with more awareness on officers a around them. In my experience they will make sure they wouldn't be bothering people but will still smoke of they feel the urge and avoid bothering those people by moving a few feet away.
Smoking is not a "right."

In the interests of public health, it is my opinion and my conviction that smokers ought to be able to sacrifice smoking while they are in public areas. Legislation restricting public tobacco use would: 1. preserve clean air for all persons (non-smokers and otherwise) 2. protect the sick, elderly, children, and all persons pursuing a healthy lifestyle 3. prevent effects of second-hand smoke (e.g., lung cancer) to non-smokers 4. encourage smokers to smoke less often 5. prevent litter (cigarette butts) and pollution from public areas (people can litter their own homes and yards)
Smoking is not a "right."

I understand and respect your opinion, and just as a side note would like to add that the example on homosexuals was just meant to be an example and nothing else. If there are any hurt feeling among anyone I whole heartedly apologize. Moving on, in my experience I spent a lot of time with smokers in several different states and found that they in a general sense made sure that they were not in the presence of other people they thought they would annoy or otherwise bother. And as a nonconsequentialist I cannot recommend the prohibition of smoking in "public areas". People must act in the maxim that could be treated as a universal law and since the smoke from cigarettes is what harms people in prohibiting smoking we must prohibit all activities that cause the release of harmful gas in "public areas". Since continues exposure to exhaust fumes has the same effect as continuous exposure to smoke we should be discussing if the use of motor vehicles should be allowed. (It's an extreme example yes but as a philosopher that's how we test theories.) Now as a new topic. The generalization of "public areas" is far too vague. In some cases private businesses are forced to ban smoking when they would not wish to. That sign outside a private restaurant or retailer that says they can refuse service is an act of assertion over public interference as well as showing that they are not public but are instead private. They have the right to make their own rules but seem to be forced to follow regulations for public areas.
Smoking is not a "right."

It appears, then, that we are generally in agreement about the major premise of my argument- the legality of cigarettes does not mean that smokers have a right which supersedes non-smokers' rights. Without taking into regard your comments about homosexuality, as the two arguments are, by all accounts, unrelated- I would like to address the one aspect upon which you and I disagree. I feel that areas wherein smoking is permitted needs to be limited. Your own experience may have led you to act respectfully when you smoked; however, I feel that many smokers are not respectful and generally behave as if they feel entitled to smoke wherever and whenever they would like. Smoking unarguably affects everyone within a certain radius. Generally, such legislation is not enforced anyway; it would simply be put forth to set a precedent indicating that the government supports the idea that people should not be unwillingly subjected to cigarette smoke.
It does NOT taste nasty

my opponent is using only the fact that there is many flavors to marijuana. i thank my opponent for dropping the flavored drops argument. now, for my last arguments: 1. people usually dont smoke ONLY for the taste, they get it for the feeling. Some people might enjoy the taste but that is not why they do it. Marijuana can be used only to get high or to relax since it has effects of a depressant. . http://www.acde.org... 2. Marijuana's taste could be good, but since i only did it once i have a right to say it tastes nasty, and also everyone's taste buds are different, some people like strawberry and some people like grape. yes it is opinionated argument and i dont have much evidence as to why i think it didnt taste as good as i would've thought to. is "it tastes nasty" a over exaggerated phrase, maybe. But i did not like the taste. My opponent is saying that i had behind my opinionated answers. my opponent has argued over again on how there are so many flavors to marijuana. As there are many flavors, i was talking about that one kind, yes my phrase was exaggerated but this doesnt hide the fact that my opponent is only using one argument as his proof.