BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming

The temperatures might not be noticeably rising but they are still rising. The fact that in the past three decades humans activity has influenced climate change it is our duty to at least try and resolve this issue .Recent studies shown by NASA done on January 19th ,2012 shows that the temperatures in the Arctic have rapidly risen since the 1970's "Global temperature data released by NASA indicates that global surface temperatures in 2011 were the 9th highest on record" With this being said sea ice in the Arctic has declined. The amount of sea ice has declined on record in 2011 because of this the wildlife has been affected as well. The NOAA found that more than 60 dead and 75 diseased seals were found in the year 2011 as well and one of the factors include the stress due to sea ice change.Although a study was done in 2009 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) it still shows how the loss of sea ice in the Arctic affects the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere stating that an increase in sea surface temperatures and ice loss can result in northward shifts in the Pacific storm track and increased impacts on coastal Alaska (USGCRP)http://thinkprogress.org...
Global warming

My opponent's claim that temperatures have risen "furiously" is incorrect. Since the middle of the 19th century, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA) has increased by approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Even evidence of such a small increase is not wholly reliable as some Climategate emails dealt with how to nudge the data in the 'right direction' in order to maximize apparent changes [1]. My opponent makes it sound as if this warming trend that she calls "furious" is persisting and getting stronger and stronger at a rapid pace. However, Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the source of the Climategate emails), stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [2]. All of my opponent's sources compiled most of their data from 2007 IPCC reports. The IPCC is not an academic institution; it is a group of government-appointed individuals, only 20% of whom have "some dealing with climate," according to global warming proponent Dr. William H. Schlesinger [3]. This 2007 report included critical errors such as claiming that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, called "far out of any order of magnitude" by tropical glaciology expert Georg Kaser [4]. Additional errors included: -"The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company. -Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters. -New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished. -More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups [5]." Seeing as the globally averaged temperature anomaly has only risen at most 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, none of that increase being in the past 15 years or so, it is inaccurate to describe this trend as an emergency that the government needs to take more seriously. [1]. Lindzen, R. R. (2009, November 30). The climate science isn't settled: Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com... [2]. Harrabin, R. (2010, February 13). Q&a: professor phil jones. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3]. Dr. William H. Schlesinger is asked about the background of IPCC members (February 12, 2009). Retrieved from youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac#t=3m35s (copy and paste in order to see the section in question) [4]. Carrington, D. (2010, January 20). Ipcc officials admit mistake over melting himalayan glaciers. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5]. Gray, R., & Leach, B. (2010, February 6). New errors in ipcc climate change report. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Global warming

Research done by NASA proves my argument above: http://climate.nasa.gov...Health is also a factor affected by this issue by changing the air quality warming of the atmosphere increases smog and air pollution this can harm those with asthma and damage lung tissue. Also this can increase diseases speared by mosquitoes and insects ,diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitishttp://epa.gov...Changes in our agricultural system will also change because of the changes in weather. Studies shown by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that crop yields and livestock have been negatively effect by the heat stress, droughts and floods. The rise in co2 emissions may have a positive affect on the growth of some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans due to the heat . The climate changes such as temperatures and weather patterns can mess up the beneficial CO2http://epa.gov...
Animal Rights

This debate is for Fire_wing’s tournament. Round 1 can be found herehttp://www.debate.org...I borrowed most of the set-up from bsh1 in this debate, I have his permission to use it. http://www.debate.org...Solon and myself are extremely thankful for the selfless, compassionate, caring, loving, angelic, sensuous, beloved, celebrated, courteous, cordial and polite, empowering and exuberant, exalting and omnibenevolent hosting of the tournament by Fire_wings. We full-heartedly acknowledge the grandiosity of his character. ResolutionJustice Requires the Recognition of Animal RightsTermsJustice: doing what is justJust: what is morally right or fairRequire: necessary or essential Animal: any organism of the Kingdom Animalia excluding humansRight: something that one may properly claim as their due/a moral or legal entitlement to, or to not perform or have others perform certain action(s) and to or to not be in certain states.Rules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.)4. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions5. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate6. The BOP is shared7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossRound StructureCon should present his case in R1 and waive the last round. No new arguments in the final round (R3 for Con and R4 for me).Thanks... to Solon for this debate, I’m sure it will be awesome.
Stereotypes Cannot and Should Not be Eradicated

In response to your acceptance, my focus will be on the present and future situation in any area no matter it's educational, criminal or socio-economic stance. If you can accept my terms, we may continue, if not, the debate may be terminated. A stereotype, as defined, is a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. Every human being, no matter how hard they try, have natural stereotypes and biases formed possibly by family members, media or experiences. This automatic urge to stereotype is human nature and therefore cannot be eradicated completely. The type of stereotyping that should be preserved is the mild, implicit stereotyping. The kind of stereotyping that is not met with prejudice and then put into action as discrimination. Stereotyping can be harmless and even beneficent to us as a race.Many people want to seem void of stereotypes and judgements so they will go against a gut feeling of danger to trust a person they do not know. Those people will seem like saints to themselves and possibly others until they are betrayed and/or hurt. Stereotypes breed certain fear and caution in people that can help protect them from danger. Without these assumptions, we would fail to place our trust in the right places. The only way stereotyping is harmful is if the stereotyped group is taunted or discriminated against, which is by all means wrong but not the point of this debate. Just to clarify.Stereotyping can be accurate and help people to assume things about a person correctly. If a woman wears a hijab, you would more often than not rightfully assume she's Muslim. This can help in now knowing what foods they cannot have if dining with them or help promote conversation. Assuming things correctly can make a person seem more knowledgeable and sensitive to others.Implicit or mild stereotypes cannot be and should not be eradicated from our society.Sources: http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Stereotypes Cannot and Should Not be Eradicated

Stance: Underlying stereotypes cannot and should not be eradicated from our society.Defining:Underlying: implicit; discoverable only by close scrutiny or analysis (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Stereotype: a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Eradicated: to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Rounds:Round One: Acceptance and StanceRound Two: Rebuttals and ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ArgumentsRound Four: Rebuttals and no further ArgumentsGood luck to Con.
Stereotypes Cannot and Should Not be Eradicated

I would first like to clarify that I am not a "he" so in the future, a word of advice would be to do research and look at a person's profile or use the pronoun "they" as I find anyone assuming I'm a he very offensive. "I see that Pro is only looking at the stereotypical response of something and not a prejudice attitude towards it.."Of course I am focusing on stereotypes as they are the subject of the debate as clearly outlined by the title. Stereotypes are in essence thoughts and beliefs, not actions. Con has been focusing directly on those actions. I apologze as I have been focusing on them as well and this should have been my argument from the beginning, but now I have realized my faults. Those actions are not stereoypes, they are discrimination. You can ban, eradicate and control actions and you can punish people for them, but stereotypes ARE NOT actions. You cannot and should eradicate a belief or thought unless you make someone brain-dead or kill them, which of course the government shouldn't be killing people just for believing something. We shouldn't be eradicated thoughts or punishing people for them as we should all have the freedom to think what we want. When you act upon those thoughts, that is DISCRIMINATION, NOT STEREOTYPES. Discrimination is wrong and should be eradicated. But the thoughts we have are, in essence, harmless. Stereotypes possibly should be eradicated to an extent, as far as the negative ones go, but you just cannot eradicate a thought or belief. We can't help what we think of or what we believe in, we haven't learned to control that internally. Mind readers do not exist therefore any claims of someone thinking something would be baseless unless the person came out and said their beliefs out loud.Cultures ARE NOT the same as stereotypes. America has come from having slavery and segregation to not having that. That culture changed. But for some, the mindset of blacks being worthless or less than whites, has still carried on. I realize that stereotypes have postitive, negative and neutral denominations. By not specifing whether the stereotypes had to be negative or positive, I implied all branches of stereotypes."...the stereotypes he gets is so oppressive,..."I would like to point out the faults of this statement. Firstly, it would be gets are so oppressive. Second, Con then goes on to say people talk down to their friend, this is discrimination as this is an action.My source placement is not of concern as I actually include sources and Con's arguments are fatally undersourced. I know very little of the denominations of Christianity Con mentioned in the last round so I would like to see a source to tell me more about this.
Stereotypes Cannot and Should Not be Eradicated

Again, as defined, stereotypes are a simplified or standardized conception invested with special meaning held in common by members of a group. The definition given does not include specification on whether or not that conception has a negative denotation. Nonetheless, I will follow Con's path to the negative stereotypes.As said before, many people will want to go against their gut feeling (not that they should, but it happens as I am simply stating fact) and help or trust someone a negative stereotype might tell them not to trust. People don't want to seem racist or biased but occasionally those negative stereotypes are correct. As you say, if an area has high crime rates where minority figures are the majority of criminals, then the stereotype that those figures are criminals may not be true for all, as many negative stereotypes aren't true for all in the group they represent, but could help in a time of uncertainty or danger.More often than not, success is based on attractiveness but it pertains to both men and women. If a man is clean-cut and wearing a suit or looks attractive and nice, than they are often deemed more successful and intelligent. As women are also judged by appearance. To say that generally females are judged by their appearance but not males is just clearly incorrect. More often than not, if a woman or a man seem to be in shape and more attractive, they have the money or motivation to make themselves look better. These two things are signs of success in the past or future.Never did I state that "cultures can't be changed," therefore I am not accepting the statements following a proper rebuttal as they are refuting a statement never shared.We are living in a modern time, and now we have bigger problems than a mountain lion, yes. We have bio weapons and drones and nuclear missiles, making the need for caution and stereotyping even more important.I never changed my argument and at the time I wrote the statements about a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, no parameters were set saying that I had to defend negative stereotypes, causing your judgment in my statement's relevance to be extraneous.Again, underlying stereotypes cannot and should not be eradicated from our society.Sources:http://www.businessinsider.com...http://www.livescience.com...
There is no external cause of the universe

AveResolution: There is no external cause of the universe Burden of proof: The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidenceDefinitions:External cause-- a cause that exists outside of, or transcends, the universeUniverse-- the totality of all the states of the universeRules: General expectations of DDO conduct should be followed. The first round is for acceptance.Vale
should parents tell your futre

Ok, I would like to address the main point that Con presents: that parents cannot tell your future. This could be taken as a prophetic sense or what the child should do in their future years. While parents themselves should not force a child to do what they want, they should give a child some ideas as to what they want the child to do in the future. If a person enters the "real world" with no clear goal, it's going to be a very bad time for that person. If a person has at least some goal to aim for in their future years. Parents' job is to raise their child to become a responsible and mature adult. Without parents giving some idea as to what their child should do or what they should aim for, the child is going to be in a very bad spot in the world, with no clue where I go. For this reason, I believe that parents should give you an idea of your future, at least to an extent.
Evolution (speciation) is false

Ok. First off, the way you continue to go on about "every time you talk about how much evidence there is, you still do not provide even one example" is strange seeing that I HAVE included evidence, but you have listed and made statements without explaining what this 'evidence' actually proves and whether it is actually credible. While you say that I continue to bring up the point that scientists think that it is true so therefore it is, you are wrong again. There is far more evidence (as I have stated and proven in my previous arguments) to support evolution being real than your argument on evolution never having happened. My argument on the shape of the earth was an obvious argument that proved that the list of people who still believe that the earth is flat (and yes, they still exist) You provided three main examples without actually explaining what they were in words that anyone who does not have a degree in science would understand regarding the following three topics that I will now explore: 1. The hypothesis of a whale's evolution. Not only did I state in my previous argument that this was wrong, but I also proved this with the evidence of how your statement on a whale's evolution was entirely false... you said that it originated from a cow when it actually did not... this clearly supports my argument around my point of you using false and unreliable material. 2. You provided no other reason behind the beginning of life besides the philosophical argument of 'God', which we are not debating today, and which any argument made against this would be attacked by those who are religious, which is why I will not begin an argument for this point. 3. The Urey-Miller Experiment was the only experiment that you put forward in this entire debate and was, once again, very unreliable, as a single experiment cannot justify anything, and you need multiple theories to make a point, which were provided in my previous arguments. The comparison of the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is a valid point, but you have unsuccessfully found the two points that I actually made, to which I did not use the theory of gravity, I linked the theory of evolution to the theory that the world is flat. Which, as I stated before, is an absurd theory seeing that scientists have proved that the world is not flat, and yet some people still believe that it is. This is the same with evolution. So no, evolution is not false
MARVEL comics is better than DC

The superheroes of Marvel comics are more realistic and therefore more inspirational. This does not make them superior, and you have yet to assess this.The superpowers that most of the heroes from the Marvel franchise have obtained are either from having enough money to run experiments that may have gone wrong, such as iron man, the hulk, the fantastic four,or from developing their own particular set of skills to extreme levels such as hawkeye and the punisher.And? How does this make them superior. There are few aliens or hyper-realistic beings. Far less than in the DC comics franchise. This makes the characters easier to relate to and makes them seem more human. The common people can look to them as success stories and aspire to make themselves everyday heroes.The convience of relatibility does not make them superior.
MARVEL comics is better than DC

Thank you kind sir! As this is my first debate my first argument is going to be a simple one and we will see where it goes from there. If we both feel like we need more rounds we can simply start another debate :) ARGUMENT ONE The superheroes of Marvel comics are more realistic and therefore more inspirational. The superpowers that most of the heroes from the Marvel franchise have obtained are either from having enough money to run experiments that may have gone wrong, such as iron man, the hulk, the fantastic four,or from developing their own particular set of skills to extreme levels such as hawkeye and the punisher. There are few aliens or hyper-realistic beings. Far less than in the DC comics franchise. This makes the characters easier to relate to and makes them seem more human. The common people can look to them as success stories and aspire to make themselves everyday heroes.
Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

I disagree with your contention that this comes down to a question of the particular issues and I made my case for that above and refer you to it. What is the basis of the honesty and integrity exhibited by Obama? For instance would you hold a person as honest and of high integrity who so much blames their opposition? Is this a characteristic of a Leader in the long arc of history? If so please refer to the philosophy that holds up as virtuous those that hurt their enemies and reward their friends and that those enemies can be citizens of a person's own country and particularly as the leader of that country? To me history will be kind on those that bring people together not drive them apart as Obama has done.
Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

In the vision for this debate I imagined I would do Pro Obama/Con Bush and you would do Pro Bush/Con Obama. However it was not realized by some lack of communication. You also did not look at the cold facts of the case, but simply stated your opinion. In fact what I wanted you to do was indeed something like you layout in paragraph 3 of your argument. As I listed the Pro Obama, I will now list the Con Bush and I hope you will follow suit. To start out with, Bush inherited the nation at peace with a budget surplus. Some of the first things he did were rollback economic programs initiated under Clinton that led to that surplus and end our participation of the Kyoto Protocal. The first reversed the surplus into a deficit, negatively impacting our economy, and the second created political tension around the world. He then curtailed efforts at nuclear disarmament that were initiated by Ronald Reagan. In what I would call his best achievement, he initiated the failed No Child Left Behind, which standardized testing at the cost of allowing teachers the freedom to teach in the manner they so wished. After 9/11 occurred, he took the fight to Afghanistan, where he saw some success. However, he proceeded to seize this opportunity to invade Iraq at the slightest provocation with minimal international support. This effort labeled "The global war on terror," became the shadow lingering over his presidency that he could not escape. He met with world leaders, such as Putin, looking into their souls. He authorized detainment in Guantanamo Bay, a problem that still festers in this world. Yet, I cannot but agree with you on one thing"it all comes down to character; and I think we will remember Obama for his integrity, honesty, and hard work and we will remember Bush for his practice of intimidation and his negligence.