BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Energies

Cleanliness of Nuclear PowerMy opponents main point is on green house gasses (good point, I will argue that later) but I also if I recall argued its radioactive pollution. The radioactive waste IS NOT STORED in permanent storage bins, "At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste/"[1] So this material, very bad and can last for hundreds of years[2], is not stored in a proper way. Further, radiation leaks trough the air (although usually minor and dont get air time) occur bust still cause environmental harm. [2] Also, the liquid or solid waste leaks too, other problems. [2] This point is nearly irrefutable. Emissions:"However, fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant."[3]My opponent still fails to dodge/argue this point, the uranium mining releases significant amount of pollutants. Now, it is a fact the actual generation of nuclear power has no emissions, but the mining of uranium and turning uranium in to fuel is the part that creates the "hidden emission". [4] "Some studies have been done, and it turns out that the act of mining the uranium (digging up the ground, extracting the ore, etc) results in between 10 and 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide being produced for every tonne of uranium oxide extracted. Apparently, your everyday 1000MW nuclear power plant needs 200 tonnes of this uranium oxide a year, so that’s 2,000 to 10,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted, just to get the fuel out of the ground!"[4]I will not give my position on global warming in this debate.Nuclear power worksYes, it does (depending on how you define "works"), but something working does not mean it is beneficial. I have proven this with my other arguments, further I have linked them to nuclear weapons. [5] Poor safety, [6] etc. Just because we can do things does not mean we should allow it. Helium 3My opponent thinks it is cost effective, essentially saying the fact here's an article. ok, How will helium3 help us? explain its cost effectiveness. "He-3 power may be too expensive given the high research and development (R&D) and construction costs."[7]>Research costs>Getting to the moon cost>Gathering/making the equipment cost>Re booting nasa to work cost[s]>Development cost>Converting the actual power plant[s] cost[s]Poor argument when you get down to it.CONCLUSION:Drops many arguments, (4), (3), (2), but argued one, hence vote con. Refuted arguments, hence vote con. y devils advocating is successful, so vote con. ________________[1] http://www.nrc.gov... [2] http://www.fi.edu... [3] http://www.epa.gov... [4] http://www.low-impact.net...[5] http://www.neis.org...[6] http://archive.greenpeace.org...[7] http://www.ehow.com...
Nuclear Energies

My opponent had only mentioned Nuclear Fusion once, so I will clarify this further.Nuclear Fusion is Clean1. My opponent argues that "Nuclear power is not clean," however he is incorrect in saying that Nuclear Fusion is not clean. This reaction only releases large amounts of heat, by radiation, in the first paragraph I should have said that the process radiates heat. Also my opponent said that Nuclear Power is unsafe. However, Nuclear Fusion is far safer, and would not have the same affects as a nuclear fission reaction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org..., it only releases energy, not radiation. Also my opponent mentioned Nuclear Power releases waste, however the Nuclear Fusion of process helium 3 and 2 only releases helium 4 and a neutron. Compared to Nuclear Fission, which my opponent really strained, the waste is easy to deal with and it is NOT radioactive.Nuclear Fusion Works2. According to wikipedia, a successful Nuclear Fusion process has been completed. This means there is a large potential use for this technology and it should not be turned down. Look further and Nuclear Fusion has the potential to power the world, for 150 billion years. Why would you ignore a technology that requires one reaction and continues to power a city for a long period of time? Well I wouldn't.Nuclear Fusion is Sustainable3.In order to start a Nuclear Fusion process, you have to simply combine TWO ATOMS, yes that's right, if you combine two atoms you gain a consistent energy flow over a long period of time. Another useful function to Nuclear Fusion could be cars, the cars would have an almost unlimited amount of fuel, and would have enough to power a car for a life time. Considering that Nuclear Fusion is so sustainable, it would be more than worth it to collect helium 3 from the moon.Helium 34. Helium 3 is extremely expensive, returning with only 2 tons of helium 3 would cover the costs and still provide profit. According tohttp://www.explainingthefuture.com... helium three is worth $3bn per tonne. According to wikipedia it costs 10 million dollars per ton of extra weight. Looking at more recent articles than my opponent, it actually costs 3 billion dollars to go to the moon. Not that this supports my argument, however two tons of helium 3 would cover all the costs. Also, on the moon there is an estimated 1,100,000, tons of helium 3 in just a depth of a few meters. Considering that there is a great supply on the moon, and that is replenished by the sun. Helium 3 would be a very valuable resource.Conclusion:Why turn down a sustainable energy that powers a city for a 150 billion years?Vote Prohttp://www.explainingthefuture.com...; http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nuclear Energies

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: State opening case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal Round 5: Rebuttal This debate was created to discus whether we should accept nuclear energies Nuclear energies could provide and do provide power to many cities, the average output of nuclear energies far exceeds the input. For example: nuclear fusion is estimated to power city for around 150 billion years for a very small amount of deuterium. The nuclear energy used today is known as nuclear fission, a process that releases large amounts of energy in short periods of time. Although nuclear fission is not as sufficient as nuclear fusion, it still powers 6% of the worlds energy production. The benefits of nuclear fission can be applied to several technologies, like weapons, transportation, ect. Just to clarify, nuclear fusion is not used today because of a single problem, it is very difficult to contain the fusion process because of the large amount of heat and radiation that is released. However there are elements, that can create nuclear fusion and are in abundance on the moon, like helium 3. Sorry con for taking so long, I had a lot of work to do. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
god and satan

Firstly, Pro has tried to shift the burden of proof by asking "you show me why i am wrong". Pro was the one whom originally made the claim. Hence, the burnden of proof is on him. I did not assert any claim until this round. Hence, Pro has made a fallacy.In the Bible and Quran, it states that Satan was not always evil. But rather, by sinning, he was cast from heaven. Hence, at first, Satan was decribed as righteous before sinning. He willingly sinned and willingly In Isiah 14, verses 12-15 it reads:"How you are fallen from heaven,O Day Star, son of Dawn!How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low!13 You said in your heart,I will ascend to heaven;above the stars of GodI will set my throne on high;I will sit on the mount of assemblyin the far reaches of the north;"A similar thing is implied in the Quran, in which Satan did not become evil until he chose to sin. And behold, We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam” and they bowed down. Not so Iblis (Satan): he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject Faith. (2: 34)Behold! We said to the angels: “Prostrate unto Adam”: They prostrated except Iblis (Satan): He said, “Shall I prostrate to one whom Thou didst create from clay?” He said: “Seest Thou? This is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway – all but a few!” (17: 61–62)This hence implies that Satan was not always evil. Why would God be evil if it was Satan that chose to sin? That is like saying Alois Hitler and Klara Hitler are both evil because they gave birth to Adolf Hitler. It was Hitler who chose to do what he did, but just because his parents gave birth to him, that doesn't make his parents evil.
Poem about a little toy

A poem about a little toy I always wanted to have a little toy I always wanted to have a her I always wanted to have a 4 year-old girl She would be my little plaything I would do to her whatever I want I would play with her, I would sleep with her I would never abandon her I would put her in all kinds of funny clothes I would enjoy watching her be naked I would give her a bath and make her all soapy Then at night we would get close and cuddle I would molest her from time to time But only sometimes when I get hard At other times, We would play different games She would be a cop, I would be a robber She would arrest me after I was caught in the act She would tie me down, And then untie me Then I would molest her and we would have fun I am a dreamer, I have fun dreaming I dream because reality is too hard To the land of dreams I escape from time to time Being commanded only by my wishes At the heart, I still feel like a child
bible does not necessarily teach that non-christians will be condemned

I must say for being so brilliant as you claim to be, you sure have lost plenty of debates. As far as being able to read... when I read "Believe or you are condemned"... I take it to mean believe......or.....you.....are......condemned. But I don't know anything about law..... as you do..... so ? Anyway, since you basically introduced nothing new here, I have nothing else to add, I shall leave it up to the voters. I would like to add on a tangent note however, that just because you got elected the president of a club doesn't really rank you next to people who have been published and have PHD's on the topic. As far as traditional responses, those professors were actually saying something untraditional: that the bible was DESIGNED to say you need Christ to be saved, instead of letting the other gospels that may have said otherwise in. As far as the man on the island, I'm just going to say that we are talking about believers or non-believers here, as for people who have never heard any of it, they aren't a non-Christian, in the context of this argument, seeing as they haven't had the chance to choose. And if you pressed the point from there, I'd have to strictly read the bible as a document and say that you have to "believe or you will be condemned" as the message has clearly been stated.....and restated.
bible does not necessarily teach that non-christians will be condemned

i suggest you reread the verses. "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). i will concede that the first verse could be construed to mean what you said that they'd be condemned, but the other verses explain more, and besides, that verse can be construed in my favor too. if you take the presumption that you have to be told, then that verse makes sense. if you look at the rest of the bible and its verses, and lack of anything else condemnatory necessarily of the nonchristians, then there's no reason to think your interpretation is correct. John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." there's really nothing to debate here. most people get stuck on the fact that it says those wwho don't believe will be condemned... but it goes on to define what condemnatino means here (most verses say "and this is the condemnation" and not the "verdict") Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. there's nothing to debate here either. it says those who does not believe after having heard the gospel will be condmened. now, you could try to separate the first sentence from the second, and say all would be condemned who don't believe... but that's stripping the sentence from its obvious context. i'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on as per the man on the island. there's no verses that says he has to believe, so he's not necessarily concnemned. i could post verses that support that he'd be judged not by any of that, but by his acting on his conscious that we all know to be true... but they are reasonably debatable verses. and, the point of this thread is to show that there are verses that say he'll be condemned. if all you have is that first first "i told you" then you're really graphing at straws since that verse could be interpreted different, and the rest of the bible is silent on whether they'd be necessarily condemned, and the few times it does speak shows that they were rejecting something.
bible does not necessarily teach that non-christians will be condemned

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding. they all say that only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island is not necessarily condemned. i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count. but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject. i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts. http://www.bible-researcher.com... but this argument is just icing on the cake, and i don't really need this argument to make my point.
China has created a successful form of Socialism

Between Capitalism and Communism is a transitory period known as Socialism where the society moves toward an communist and egalitarian utopia, Before any of this may happen a rurla society must go through a period of capitalist development, This is consistant with both marxist and Leninist thought i refer to lenins new economic policies which allowed for markets Let us remember that half of the chinese economy is still run by the state no other economy on earth is that state run other than n korea or zimbabwe not even the failed state of venezuela. . And even though the state runs a huge chuck of the economy? And 1 out of 2 workers are employed by the state, I think that is still very socialist
China has created a successful form of Socialism

The crux of your argument is that because China has socialist tools at it's disposal, And are currently experiencing positive growth, They are considered a successful socialist state, However, You have mired your argument by conceding that China has "compromised" it's core structure as a socialist nation, By embracing capitalism. Truth be told, China, Since it's revolution, Has spent most of it's socialist decades as merely a repressive unitary state, And has only in it's most recent decades experienced exponential growth, Due almost entirely to their embrace of a market economy. In order to understand the state of China, You have to understand it's socialist history. Following the communist takeover in 1949, Land reforms were instituted which resulted in millions of executions of land owners. The Great Leap Forward, A major economic reform undertaking, Resulted in the starvation of nearly 45 million Chinese. These social reforms and resulting deaths, Are very similar in nature to the forced social reforms of North Korea and Soviet era Russia. The Cultural Revolution in the 60's pushed China further into socioeconomic isolationism by purging even more capitalist influences from society. It wasn't until the late 1970's that major reforms took place, With the loosening of restrictions on it's people and the economy. Most importantly with this shift, China began to implement open market capitalism into it's system. This restructuring grew, Finally resulting in the country becoming the economic powerhouse we know today by the late 1990's. I will concede that China's centralized leadership, And vast state-ownership of economic enterprises do not make China a truly free capitalist economy, But it's what single handedly made Shanghai and Beijing epicenters of international commerce, And what continues to bring millions of peasants out of poverty. Without China's participation in the free market, They would not be where they are today. Furthermore, Despite China's economic success, The disparity of it's underclass can't be ignored in this debate. Despite major reforms, China is still one of the poorest nations on Earth per capita, When taking into consideration the economic stability of it's citizens. Despite dramatic growth to it's GDP, The newfound wealth of the country is largely maintained in it's urban centers, Which has created a huge gap between upper and lower classes, With over 90% of the country still making less than $1. 90 a day. (Ref: https://geopoliticalfutures. Com/china-is-still-really-poor/) A true socialist utopia (not that the original argument says as such), Would mean economic equality for all citizens, But China has never come close to realizing this, Thus making them a failed experiment in socialism, And yet another success story of market based economics.
China has created a successful form of Socialism

Socialism was tried for decades and always failed because it was to extreme government tried to comntrol every aspect of life and economies. Results were dismal. But China where most of the economy is still owned and operated by the state, Has found a compromise, Much of the economy has been turned to the market and this is good but the commanding aspects of the economy are still in the hands of the state, The results have been miraculous for the people of china almost a billion people have been lifted out of poverty and the economy has boomed for 3 decades now.
The private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.

Good luck here, and in your other debates. I disagree with the resolution that: The private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States. Now I'm going to first refute my opponents case and then move onto my own case. So, my opponent's whole point basically boils down to the fact that handguns are some of the most commonly used types of murder weapons and that by banning them we can cut down on crime. Now, I do not disagree that handguns are used in today's crimes but, even if we eliminated them from the United States, there would still be crime, just committed with other weapons, or illegal obtained firearms, which leads to my first point. Point 1: By banning firearms, you stop the trade of legal firearms, but those who obtain firearms illegally will still have them. I'm referring to gangs and those committing crimes. If we take guns away, they will still find a way to obtain them. It would be probable that they would obtain these firearms in some kind of system similar to that of today's drug dealer system. By doing this, we would increase the number of these kinds of people living in our nation, and have more problems with our borders as people sneak these weapons across the boarders. This would not be good, and may actually raise crime levels. Point 2: Guns are used as a form of self defense by many more than as a offensive weapon(crime). I will use some examples from the International Society for Individual Liberty to help flesh out my point. (Link at bottom of the page. ) "1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim. " And lastly "a recent study by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times a year. " As you can see, handguns are extremely helpful, and in their current state, much safer than if they were made illegal. This is why I think that handguns should not be banned from the United States.
The private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the last round. I will just reiterate my case pointing out to the voters in this debate. 1: I have shown how banning firearms could bring in a black market system that may actually raise crime levels. This has gone uncontested so far. 2: I have shown how guns are a legitimate article of many self defense, and used examples to show how helpful they are as well. This has also gone uncontested. Due to the fact that I never actually posted the link in the last round, I will now post it. http://www.isil.org... Thanks to all who read this debate, and please vote Aff.
If you accept this debate, then you lose.

- If you disagree with me on any of these things, then you lose - If you forfeit, then you lose. - If you comment on this debate, you lose. - If anyone votes for you, then you lose. - If any of the above rules are broken, you lose, and I get all 7 points. - None of the above Rules apply to me*Pizza should be illegal. *I should rule the world* You should be bannedChoose which one you want to argue, but one more condition. - If you make a choice,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. YOU LOSE SUCKA
If you accept this debate, then you lose.

Ahem, I will remind the audience that I do indeed make the rules, as that is within my right when making a debate. This user, who has been around for about an hour, should not be trying to set new DDO norms, or should of he accepted the debate.He still argues that he has not lost, but he has still yet failed to pick a topic, which means he has nothing to argue in the first place. In conclusion, I present the audience with a gif, in celebration of my victory.