BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

Besides ethanol, there are also successful hydrogen-powered and oxygen powered cars, and even solar-powered cars, that can fit the current infrastructure (road) system. They just need to be mass-produced. Your argument against the use of nuclear energy and its links don't matter since I agree with you on that - nuclear energy isn't a good idea in my opinion. Since I never disagreed with you about it, we don't need to argue about it. "All electric and hybrid battery cars..." Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without? Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there. "Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more." It will not take that long, and with the proper funding, it can happen. I've already stated that some alternative-energy cars are efficient and suited to the current infrastructure. And using hydroelectric power at major water bodies can provide enough energy for alot of places. Using wind power on the coast and in high places can provide energy for those places. Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions".
children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )

Oh well I'm very sorry ! but i don't agree at all. i think your totally missing the concept of what i mean and i think if you really thought hard about it and looked at all the facts and knowledge you have to do with this subject, then you would understand but your too busy looking at it from a negative point of view. Also i have to put this but do not refer things to animals this has nothing to do with what i am stating. CATS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS weather you were using this as an example. Again i must state that PEOPLE ARE HUMAN AND HAVE EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS !!!!! I think this is perfectly accept for a teacher to have a relationship with the student. i don't see why a job title or what ever should get in the way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )

It's not about the teacher, it's not even about the student. You think the student is just getting another friend, but the student is getting a relationship instead of a friend. This is the most significant aspect of this debate, that it's impersonal. What is to be judged is the relationship, not the people involved in it. With that out of the way, I have to remind you that you're not responding to my arguments, what you did this round was jump onto someone else's comment and used that for your response. Metta said something that wasn't relevant to the round, and it was just a comment so it didn't matter, but you used it, unfortunately. Of course the teacher is a person as well, which is why we have this problem in the first place. Parallel situation: You own five cats. You are their owner, and you're a human. You feed them every day at four. At three, one of the cats comes onto your lap and purrs, and you obviously pet it. You have just created a relationship between only one cat, and yourself, its owner. That cat is now different. The cat is different because it got something the other cats didn't. The other cats let it pass for the time being. A week later, that one cat gets something stuck in its fur. Two weeks ago, it would have come to the other cats so they could help it get it out, but now it comes to you. Two weeks ago, you also would've disregarded the cat and whatever's in its fur because you saw the cats helping each other this way, and the cat would have done just that. However, now you help the cat yourself, and it's all cleaned up. The other cats see that it's coming to you and not to them, and that you're helping it and not them, solely on the basis that this one cat now needs you, and they have got each other. This is the fallacy I described, and which has gone through round 2 uncontested, so I carry it through. Once again, it is a fallacy to think that you can help one student, or one cat, without reciprocating this to the other ones. Even if they need your help, there are alternatives, as i describe, once again uncontested, in round 1, and then that student becomes different, even in the slightest manner, but nonetheless a manner that resonates strongly enough to change some aspects within the class's, or group of cats', social fabric. If you eat a pack of cookies in the middle of class, you better have enough to share with all the others. If you help one student in the middle of class, you better have enough time to also help all the others. It doesn't matter if they need it, but if they feel as if they don't have it, the one that does will be unfortunate.
children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )

I disagree ! Teachers are no different, it has nothing to do with being a teachers pet or teachers showing more attention to that student. Teachers are human beings who are no different than me or you. they have feeling and personally i think it would be a great idea and shoudn't be frowned upon or looked down. I'm sure many people will agree that they had a teacher they were close with or they had a teacher that they liked and wanted to keep in contacted with or what ever, but because of all these stupid, silly, pathetic rules they couldn't or didn't. i think a if a child gets on well with his/hers teachers or confides in them then i think it's perfectably exceptable I'd rather my child be happy becasue they have a teacher or someone to talk to then upset and lonely because they didn't want to talk to me about a certain problem or issue. Yes it would bother me that they didn't want to talk about it but i would be happy knowing they had somone else to talk to or a helping them with there problems
children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )

I'll assume those are your arguments. Then I'll try to be as short as possible as well, but i'll include formatting. One. Relativity. A relationship that goes beyond teacher-student affects other students indadvertedly. One kid sees that another is getting special treatment, even if it's only a smile or hello in the morning, and a little part of them gets triggered. They start thinking something's unfair and they take action against it. I don't know to what extent this relationship is intact and visible between the student and teacher, however even just one time that the teacher takes the kid away to say anything to it w/o the others being called, that child is now the teacher's pet and the other kids' superior, even if nothing happened. In one fell swoop, a kid that gets even an ounce of special or different treatment can become the person the class outcasts. Two. Fish in the pond. You're thinking along the lines of "why not," by expressing that there is very little risk to such a relationship, it's beneficial for the kid to have someone, but this person is still a stranger. A child needs peers not figures in their life. Friends are more important than contacts at this point in a child's life. A teacher will not bring anything to the child's life that a close friend or caring parent could. So, if you need someone to rely on in your life, to tell your problems to, and someone who can help you, there are many other people you can turn to, and many caring peers, of your own age, are always around you in these situations. Three. A fallacy. The effect I describe under point 1 affects all other arguments. This is a psychological condition. The teacher is responsible for many kids and cannot be allowed to look after one of them more closely, it ruins the system. Then, if the teacher does do this, the other kids cast this special child out. There's nothing different about this one child, but the teacher's contact made it different. What this means is that no matter the relationship the teacher has with the child, extremely positive, necessary, or just friendly, if another classmate sees it, they will feel inadequate, saying "Why didn't the teacher choose me?" We cannot run this risk of affecting a lot of other kids for the sake of one kid who needs someone to help them in their life, especially since that child has alternatives it can turn to.
children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )

I think children should be aloud to have a friendly relationship with there teachers or who ever. i was close with my teacher, i was going through a difficult time and my teacher Mrs Desena helped me alot. we were close but i knew that eventually she woundn't be there. and i wasnt going to be able to keep in contact. Because i knew this and with the difficult time in my life i went into severe depression and didn't know what to do. i didnt want to loose the one and most important person to me.. So i think children should be aloud to have a relationship with someone as long as they know whats right and wrong. now i think this is a good idea and i personally would let my child do this. if i met the teacher and was happy. If i found that he/she wasn't able to speak to me for what ever reason but had a sensible close bond with her teacher or who ever then i would be happy for them to do so. so whats your opinion on this ......
minimum wage

my opponent told me if someone's making less than their salary, that is completely easy to solve, fire the guy and find someone who is willing to take the job and produce more money than his salary. even if they can't find anyone else, they'll ask and force the guy to make more money if he wants a higher salary. If he was making $4 per hour and his salary was $8 dollars. His/her boss would ask them to work more if they want a higher salary like $15 dollars per hour. the human mind would want that and work for it.
minimum wage

R1: My opponent says "workers should get paid for there work" this is totally contradictive to what my opponent is arguing, minimum wage guarantees that a worker will get over paid for there work. Lets put this in perspective if a worker only brings only $3 a hour for the company and the company has to pay the worker $8. That is a loss of $5 dollars a hour, so a worker is not getting paid for there work. Minimum wage simply kills jobs and should be abolished. I will dig deeper into arguments against the minimum wage in the next round. Good luck to my opponent.
The Electoral College Voting System In the US Should Be Replaced

Argument Electoral colleges are "a body of electors; especially: one that elects the president and vice president of the United States."Source:[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...PresidencyBy the help of the electoral colleges a specific individual will be able to gain presidency. The founding fathers new that most people would try to steal this presidency. Here is what they have written in the constitution: "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787. Preserving FederalismThe Founding Fathers knew that that Electoral Colleges would be able to fix corrupt federalism. Federalism is the ability to share power between the states and the main government. By the constitution, people are required to choose their leaders that will represent them in the U.S. State Congress. Technically, this is about electing an official from any state so he/or she can gain leadership in D.C. and represent his/or her state. Electoral Colleges Represent Democracy Electoral colleges represent democracy. The United States of America represents democracy under the republican government. According to the constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." People will be able to elect the officials through this process. While electing their new leader, the government will be able to avoid the direct election dangers (2).Sources:[2]: http://usgovinfo.about.com...Prevents Run-off electionsElectoral colleges avoid run-off elections. We will still be able to elect the proper official if the two candidates won't get the popular votes. For instance, Richard Nixon received 43% of popular votes, but won 301 votes in the college system. Electoral colleges will always have the ability to elect the right leader for this nation (3).Sources:[3]: http://www.businessinsider.com...Everyone has a chance to be included in the systemEveryone will have the opportunity to be involved in the governmental system. The South received more votes from Romney because it has a hire republican population, but there have been a few states in the North that voted for him as well. Everyone will have a part of the system.Certain OutcomeElectoral officials share the popular vote. For instance, Obama had 61.7% of popular votes while Romney had 51.3% of popular votes. It is possible for both candidates to receive the same amount of votes, but it has a very low likelihood (4).Sources:[4]: http://www.slate.com...
Society has created mental illness.

Society has created norms that everyone should conform to, To be accepted. Anything or anyone not part of these norms is considered unusual, Even though society has created those norms. These shunned people are bullied, Discriminated and overall ostracised from society by society themselves. This exclusion makes these people feel bad about themselves resulting in the development of mental illnesses like depression and anxiety. As they no longer feel they are wanted in society, They result to the only thing they feel is left, Suicide. People don't just kill themselves, There is underlying issues like mental illness that cause them to do it. Mental illness and suicide rates are increasing with 1 in 2 Australians having experienced some type of mental illness. Suicide rates among those aged 15-24 increased from 10. 3 per 100, 000 people in 2007 to 12. 7 in 2016. National Mental Health Commission chief executive officer, Dr Peggy Brown believes that these increases have occurred from societal pressures like social media and body image, Bullying, Stress from school, Getting a job and affording a home. Social media and body image is one of the biggest causes of mental illness today. Looking at your phone, It's hard to miss a photo of a "picture perfect" instagram model. These models are in no way promoting a healthy and realistic body image as majority of them have had surgery of some type and work out twice a day which is not achievable in today's society. Teens will either subconsciously or not view these images at feel self conscious about their own body because most of us don't look like them. They see that these models are popular as they are getting millions of like on their pictures. They want to look like them and have the perfect body so they resort to starving themselves or forcing themselves to vomit. Anorexia and bulimia affect mainly teens girls but can affect anyone and it is life threatening as not getting the right nutrition can kill you. These eating disorders also come hand in hand with anxiety and depression as you are constantly thinking about what others think of you and how you feel about your body. Society has created these mental illnesses as before the 2000s, Before the first recognizable social media was created, Six Degrees in 1997, These eating disorders were uncommon and unheard of as people weren't constantly exposed to these models. 16% of people in Australia are affected by these life threatening eating disorders and it is continuing to grow as social media models become more popular.
2+2=5, Not 4.

Con has not in any way attempted to refute my arguments. He uses the assumption that 1+1+1+1=4, but as I already showed, 1+1=2, and 1+1+1+1=5. This he has not refuted in the slightest. I therefore see no further need of defending my position.Considering that Con is rather new to the site, I would like to extend to him a warm welcome and the wish that he betters his performance of tonight! Thank you all for your attentiveness! (Yes, I do not hold the resolution true)
2+2=5, Not 4.

Con has presented an argument and as such he also has a BoP. Con makes several assumptions which I will here debunk. The first is that he assumes that 1+1=2. From this invalid assumption, he then proceeds to claim that 1+1+1+1=4. This is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is that if I define 2 to be the half of 5, and 1 to be the half of 2, then 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1=(1+1)+(1+1)=2+2=5. This, within the definition I am using, elegantly and simply proves the fact that 2+2=5. The second argument of his centers around an unsound premise. It is not because P2 is true that C1 is true. In fact, it is the other way around. It is because an equal number added to an equal number has a sum which is equal to an even number that zero when added with an even number produces the sum of an even number. It is unfortunate that Con dogmatically asserts that 5 is an odd number. According to dictionary, odd is an adjective with two meanings. Different from what is usual or expected; strange Having one left over as a remainder when divided by two. In the first definition, 4 could just be as odd as 5 because I do not expect either, thus, with this definition and his syllogism, both 4 and 5 are not the sum of two. However, with the second definition, I have already explained above that given the definitions (lacking by Con, therefore provided by Pro), 5/2=2=1+1. This is a very clear proof of the fact that 2+2=5, not 4. However, in this second argument, Pro asserts that just because 5 is (supposedly) an odd number, and 2 is an even number, 2+2=/=5 and thus must be equal to 4. This is a logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy. " From philosophy-index, "A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives. In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options. " As can be easily seen, 2+2=n, where according to Con, n is an even integer. He has not fulfilled his BoP to show that 2+2=4 instead of 5. He has ignored all the other possible "even" answers.
2+2=5, Not 4.

Arguments: Argument #1: The Four ArgumentP1. Four divided by Two is TwoC1. Therefore, two plus two is fourP2. Four isn't equal to five.C2. Therefore, 2+2 doesn't equal fiveArgument #2: The Odd Argument P1. Zero is an even numberP2. Zero plus an even number equals an even number.C1. Therefore, an even number added to an even number always equals an even number. P3. Two is an even numberP4. Five is an odd numberC2. Therefore, 2 add 2 doesn't equal five.
Once Saved, Always Saved

Despite the fundamental nature of the belief or how whether such a concept is contained in the Bible: those things do not establish something as true. Christ, the Bible, Christianity, salvation, God... please show that these things are valid prior to using them as premises to other conclusions. If, for example, God does not exist and the Bible is simply an group of writings from a few thousand years ago without any bearing on reality, how is salvation established, much less a permanent salvation? --- Furthermore, your argument that OSAS is established by the Bible is even on weaker grounds than just being propped up by an unsupported book. The Bible speaks often of people losing their faith. Matthew 13:18-23, the parable of the sewer of seeds: those without roots quickly fall away. Mark 13:13, stand firm to the end for salvation. 1 Corinthians 3:16, you are the Temple of God and if you defile yourself God will destroy you. 2 Peter 1:10, make your calling and election sure. 1 John 2:24, if you continue to believe you'll continue to be saved. James 1:13-14, God never tempts you away and if you are tempted and drawn away it is your own lust. Matthew 24:13,24,25 ; Luke 8:5-8,11-15 ; 12:45,46 ; 14:34,35 ; 15:13,21,24 ; 22:31,32 ; Romans 11:17-22 ; 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 ; 9:27 ; 10:1-12 ; 11:31,32 ; 15:1,2 ; Galatians 5:4,7 ; Philippians 2:12,13 ; Colossians 1:22,23 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:5,8 ; and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ; 1 Timothy 1:5-7 ; 3:6,7 ; 4:1 ; 5:12,15 ; 6:10,20,21 ; 2 Timothy 2:15,17,18 ; 3:14,15 ; 4:3,4 ; Hebrews 2:1-3 ; 3:12-14,18 ; 4:1,11-13 ; 6:4-6 ; 10:26,29,38 ; 12:15-17 ; and James 1:14,15 ; 5:19,20 ; 1 Peter 1:9 ; 2 Peter 1:10 ; 2:15,16,20,21 ; 3:17,18 1 John 2:24,25,28 ; Revelation 2:5,10,11 ; 3:1-5,16 ; and 22:19. If you prove the validity of the Bible and existence of God; My arguments against the topic will largely come from the above scriptures for phase two. So your task is two fold. * Prove the existence of God and validity of the Bible, existence of salvation and Messiah-ship of Jesus. * Present some argument as to why this silly doctrine isn't Biblical when the text of the Bible seems to clearly disagree. --- Also, on strictly practical terms, if you actually believe in Jesus... what's the point afterwards? Why not just start doing blow and hookers? You're already saved from that point onward. I actually know a several atheists who fell away from such beliefs. You're telling me that although they spend their lives supporting a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, stem cell research, and arguing that the Bible is simply fiction that they still go to heaven?
Being gay is harmful to society.

I don't disagree to your first response so I will not respond to it. It does not refute what I am saying though. "I would agree that if you are sensitive you can over react to insults, however not all discrimination can be so trivially ignored. Regardless of how content the gay person is with being gay, they are still going to come to harm if they are beaten for being gay." Sure, but the immediate cause of the harm was not that they were gay, it was the beating. I could take the cause one step further back if I knew exactly what part of the gay person being gay made them beat them. No doubt, the person thinking they needed to beat the gay person came from an irrational belief. "What about if right before you were punched in the face you said to the other person, "The world would be better off if you and your dyke lover should be incinerated!". Unknown to you, that person just tragically lost their partner to suicide because of relentless hate bashing. Now in that case, what caused your physical harm? By the above logic you have argued, is it not your own ignorant hate speech?" No, by my logic the girl killed herself because of an irrational belief that people hate-bashing made her life somehow not worth living. "there have been multiple cases of harm coming to gays simply because they are gay, none of these were refuted and they were simply conceded." I'm sorry if this is so, I must have missed them. My argument is that, based on Dr. Ellis's teachings, that the harm came to them not because they were gay, but because they, and/or the people that harmed them had irrational beliefs which caused them to do irrational things. A gay person is not bashed physically or mentally because they are gay, they are bashed because the basher has an irrational belief that they cannot tolerate gayness and they need to do something about it that harms gays. Unless a physical action by a gay-basher, it is up to the gay person to decide if they will let those person's actions harm them emotionally. To add to the ones already presented I will present the following, same sex couples are prohibited from adopting in many countries - this obvious has the potential to cause harm unless it was actually argued that no gay people would ever wish to adopt." In this instance, the gay couples can choose not to be harmed emotionally by this injustice.