BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our Future Is NOT In Space

"I'm not denying that we've sent people into space, and I'm certainly not disputing that we still have technology in space. In my original argument, I made the distinction between merely flying to the moon and actually building a colonizable base on the moon. I rambled on about this for a few lines there haha. I'm sure you remember this." This is where the cookie crumbles. By stating that we have had success in space, you prove that I am right in stating that, "Our Future IS In Space", merely because space has already taken us to the future. Several times over. "And what about people who are still in space? The mere fact that we are able to keep astronauts alive on the ISS for short periods at a time is hardly evidence that we're prepared to settle entire communities of people on Martian bases for the remaining duration of their lives." This argument is good and well, however it does not pertain to the topic. Us staying in space doesn't matter. All I have to do is prove that space is the future, and I have done this. "Well that's decidedly convenient. So if I understand correctly, you are going to offer rebuttals to my original argument but only after I've depleted my allotted 3 rounds? I also have literally no idea why you said, "seeing as to how you know my entire argument, inside and out." What's that supposed to mean? Did I offend you?" This threw me off, but after rereading it several times, I think I got it. Of course, I spent one round explaining my ideas. Theres no reason to spend another 4,000 characters on re explaining my argument, when i have already covered every angle of it. "A debate thesis may just be an opinion, but some opinions are better justified than others." I agree completely! But the only opinions that are better justified, are the ones justified at all! I do not believe that gibberish that does not pertain to the topic counts as "justification". "We've learned from Biosphere 2 that it requires years of cross-talk between a wide array of disciplines in the engineering and physical sciences just to solve a simple problem like oxygen containment." Again, I claim irrelevancy. "Thank you, and thank you AbandonedSpring for taking the time to debate this with me. I hope we will be able to debate on better terms next time :)" of course! and I hope to debate again. I will end by reaffirming my I am correct. The topic is, "our future is NOT in space", a topic which I have proven with just a few of the technologies we have received from space. The amount of things we have learned about physics from space is incredible, and has launched us into the future. Thank you, I am finished.
Our Future Is NOT In Space

Thus far, your argument has failed to distinguish between exploration and colonization. My thesis deals specifically with the latter.I'm not denying that we've sent people into space, and I'm certainly not disputing that we still have technology in space. In my original argument, I made the distinction between merely flying to the moon and actually building a colonizable base on the moon. I rambled on about this for a few lines there haha. I'm sure you remember this.And what about people who are still in space? The mere fact that we are able to keep astronauts alive on the ISS for short periods at a time is hardly evidence that we're prepared to settle entire communities of people on Martian bases for the remaining duration of their lives.You said, "I am not going to jump straight into rebuttals, seeing as to how you know my entire argument, inside and out."-_- Well that's decidedly convenient. So if I understand correctly, you are going to offer rebuttals to my original argument but only after I've depleted my allotted 3 rounds? I also have literally no idea why you said, "seeing as to how you know my entire argument, inside and out." What's that supposed to mean? Did I offend you?In conclusion...A debate thesis may just be an opinion, but some opinions are better justified than others. We do, in fact, have available data from which to form an educated opinion on this issue. And when it comes to colonizing other planets, the data doesn't look so great. We now know, for example, that even if building a extraterrestrial base is theoretically possible, the path to getting there is hardly straightforward. The successful completion of such a project is not merely a matter of time and money. We've learned from Biosphere 2 that it requires years of cross-talk between a wide array of disciplines in the engineering and physical sciences just to solve a simple problem like oxygen containment. Moreover, suprising new challenges seem to pop-up every time an astronaut returns from space. First their muscles fail, then their immune systems fail... what next? Space can be highly unpredictable. Once we think we've figured it out, our scientists and engineers are suddenly overwhelmed with a surprising new challenge. And, of course, what about the problem of time? The truth is, we don't have nearly as much time as we'd like. Climate change and nuclear terrorism are imminent threats to the survival of humanity, and there's no reason to believe we can colonize other planets before these threats become a reality.At the very least, surely everyone can agree on this: We must, as our first and foremost priority, care for this delicate planet and civilization that we have here on Earth. For all we know, Earth may be all we'll ever have. So let's face the challenges and difficulties we have here, and let's not hedge all our bets on sci-fi fantasies when the problems here at home are ever mounting.Thank you, and thank you AbandonedSpring for taking the time to debate this with me. I hope we will be able to debate on better terms next time :)
Our Future Is NOT In Space

I am not going to jump straight into rebuttals, seeing as to how you know my entire argument, inside and out. "I assume you read my opening thesis argument. To reiterate: We are debating whether humanity will successfully colonize other planets/moons with human citizens and establish self-sustaining bases there." I did read your thesis, but at the end of the day, all a thesis is is an opinion. In this case, an opinion of the topic, which is "Our Future Is NOT In Space", in which I supplied clear reasons why our future IS in space. "We have indeed learned many things from space, and many of us are, indeed, enamored with space. But do we really possess the collective motivation and resources necessary to get us there and to keep us there?" Yes, NASA put us there, and yes, NASA is keeping us there. I say 'keeping' because NASA still has technology of ours still in space. "You briefly mentioned NASA and alluded to all the great work they've done for us. But the truth is, the United States is no longer invested in NASA. NASA consistently received about 1% of the federal budget during the space race in the 60's. Nowadays, they don't even reach half a percentage. We're talking thousands of millions of dollars less funding. The NIH and NSF budgets for scientific research are following a similar trend. The US hardly cares about science anymore, let alone space." Federal funding is great, but so are donations from the public. You better believe if it comes down to another cold war, then funding and donations would kick back up. Ultimately, this topic is ridiculous, seeing as to how our future has been in space for some years not, and will continue to stay that way for many more to come. Thanks you, I have finished speaking.
Our Future Is NOT In Space

I assume you read my opening thesis argument. To reiterate: We are debating whether humanity will successfully colonize other planets/moons with human citizens and establish self-sustaining bases there.We have indeed learned many things from space, and many of us are, indeed, enamored with space. But do we really possess the collective motivation and resources necessary to get us there and to keep us there?You briefly mentioned NASA and alluded to all the great work they've done for us. But the truth is, the United States is no longer invested in NASA. NASA consistently received about 1% of the federal budget during the space race in the 60's. Nowadays, they don't even reach half a percentage. We're talking thousands of millions of dollars less funding. The NIH and NSF budgets for scientific research are following a similar trend. The US hardly cares about science anymore, let alone space.Space was the dream of the 60's. But the 60's are gone, man.
Our Future Is NOT In Space

As Pro, all I have to prove is that our future is in space. I will start of by defining future: "time that is to be or come hereafter." This applies to the situation because it shows that the world as a whole has made many advancements in technology, and for the most part, the majority of the world is at least interested in space. Ever since the "space race" the world has been in a scramble to see things that we can't see without visiting a place in space. Our future is in space because of the things we can learn from space. We seem to take for granted all the things we have been given because of our thirst for knowledge of space. As we have dreamed to achieve all of the mysteries of space, we now have CAT scans, something that is vital to us as a people. NASA also perfected water purification. Making water cleaner for everyone. The things we have learned from space shows us that yes, our future is in space. Thank you, I now stand ready for rebuttals.
A minority as president!

In theory, you are right. But also in theory, communism is perfect and Hilliary does not have a vagina. moving on... IF they were elected in because they were good IF they were IF! the actuality is, they wouldn't be. There will always be a skewed vote. But lets assume we are in a hypothetical world. Let's assume that they are voted in because they are good for this country. A race is defined by Webster's 9th New Encyclopedic Dictionary as ...a group of people that have coinciding beliefs... Thus the minority race would have many the same beliefs of the minority race. Yes this definition is NOT PERFECT, but we must have this defined somehow so a minority president would most likely continue affirmative action because that coincides with the beliefs of his or her race. Affirmative action may be supported by only 20% of the population. Then, the minority leader has violated the principles of a democracy. So both in the real world and a hypothetical situation, a minority leader is wrong *still not racist :)
A minority as president!

I think I understand what your saying. But in the case of Oprah,what if she endorsed Senator Barack Obama because of what she believes he can do for this country! Should she be harassed just because he happens to be black? I don't think so! I think that voting in a minority would be a big step up for our country! Is our country mature enough? No, I dont think so! I support Hillary Clinton, and it doesn't matter to me that she happens to have breasts and a vagina! She is a person and I believe she can do good for this country! The United States is a country of immigrants and when we can finally but differences behind us will we truly be "United"!
A minority as president!

First of all I am not a white supremacist and I agree with you, but I will play the devil's advocate in order to debate... Democracy- latin Demo -people cracy -clause meaning of in accordance to government thus the original definition of democracy was a government ruled by the people. There are different versions of a democracy representative and direct we are a representative democracy in America and thus we can limit debate to this Representative democracy is people vote on representatives. the representatives with the majority vote win. thus a minority should only be president if the majority support them Here are some reasons why this won't happen. Sure there will be some min. voting for a maj. candidate and vice versa. BUT looking at current Barrack Obama and Oprah Winfrey. Houston Chronicle article stated Oprah was harassed for not supporting a woman and only supporting Obama because he is a minority race taking a stand for his race. People are not perfect, and we must assume that many people WILL vote for a minority because of their race*** This harms the political system because voters aren't voting for representatives as they should. Thus the representatives aren't representative and thus we aren't a democracy. I apologize if that sounded really confusing! I kinda confused myself. A minority should not be elected because they will gain most of their support for illegitimate reasons, thus democracy would be destroyed once again not racist :)
A minority as president!

yes I am not very optimistic sir, I am a realist. you completely ignored final point involving affirmative action yes our politicians are not great! and yes a little african american girl could do a better job. But would she support something that helped her race over the country? This problem does not exist with a majority group because they are the majority and if they support something that supports their race they are still supporting a majority, democracy, and america. Once again, in the real-world a minority candidate would hurt democracy (as stated unopposed above in rd 1) Once again, in the hypothetical world a minority candidate would support their race (as stated unopposed in rd 2 and 3) Good Debate!
A minority as president!

You are not optimistic! Many countries around the world have elected women into there highest office! And we, the United States, the land of oppertunity, can't seem to grow any ba**s and do the same thing. That is disgraceful. People need to put aside their differences, once again, and think about whats in the best interest of THIS country! People have become so ignorant and obsessed with themselves its disgusting! People don't realize that an african-american little girl could do a better job in washington than our hopeless president George W. Bush! Anyway, our country needs a person who can take us in the right direction! In my opinion thats anyone of the democratic candidates!
driving age should be lower

Your argument fails on the basis that you provide no supporting evidence. You merely stated these assertions based on your own reasoning. To be honest, these views arent so unnique that it hasnt been thought of before. Driving is a responsibility. When one gets into a car and drive, a passenger or a driver, their lives are being put at risk. Teens are still in the growing stage. It has been shown that their decision making capacity, locaated in our frontal lobe of the brain, does not fully develop until the age of 25. Thus, it is suggested that teens make bad habits beacuse the reasoning part of the brain isnt fully developed. However, when you put one's life on the line, driving becomes an exception to the learning from experience motto. This is evident by the fact that insurance companies charge people under the age of 21 TWICE as much for insurance than an adult. In terms of learning the rules of the road, one learns vicariously through their parents' driving habits. If you can prove that with the current laws already in place that teen deaths are lower or even equal to adults due to car related accidents then I will fully forfeit this debate. However, there are no, none, nada, zip, zilch data suggesting that adults get into more accidents than teens.
driving age should be lower

Yes but all over the country, teens are learning how to drive and using this skill in everyday activities. Whether it"s driving to school, work, or running errands, a car always comes in handy to make daily tasks easier for the entire family. When you are still in high school, independence on the road is important. This is one of the many reasons that New York State should consider lowering the driving age. Not only will this grant young Americans to learn the rules of the road earlier, it will teach them responsibility at an early age and they will fully benefit from this alteration in the law.
Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

There are many reasons to not believe in evolution: it its a pseudoscience and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and is a complete lie. 1. No transitional fossilsPremise 1: In order for evolution to be true, transitional fossils must existPremise 2: No transitional fossils existConclusion: Evolution is not trueProof for premise 2:The "scientific" community lead by the evolutionists is desparate to find missing links to prove evolution. However, all of these attempts were futile! One of the such attempts is the Nebraska man, which was an alleged missing link between men and apes. However, it is actually a pig's tooth. (http://creation.com...)Even the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said that there is a lack of transitional fossils."The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." (http://www.conservapedia.com...)2. No new speciesAll of the alleged speciation events are within kinds. We don't see elephants turning into fruit flies.3. Differences between birds and dinosaursEvolutionists claim that birds came from dinosaurs. However, dinosaurs are huge and birds are small, and birds have air sacs and unidirectional breathing, and they also have no diaphragm.
Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

I suppose I will spend this round giving some proofs for evolution.These are summarised from http://evolutionfaq.com.... 1. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. 2. The fossil record can show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 3. Genetic similarities between humans and other organisms show that we shared a common ancestor in the past, and the amount of difference corresponds to how long ago the genetic lines diverged. 4. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels and others all belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that as embryos all these life forms have gill slits, tails and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. In early stages of development all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 5. Bacteria can build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.
Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

1. It is clear that you have not looked at the two sources provided. There are more than just bird-dinosaur transitional fossils there, and to assert that all of the fossils listed are of dubious reliability is incorrect and indefensible. In regards to your reference, it is to an article originally accepted in 1997, and according to it "Both specimens have interesting integumentary structures that could provide information about the origin of feathers." Your claim that the proto-feathers could be mistaken for collagen in dinosaur skin is a controversial issue, however Hans-Dieter Sues, associate director for research and collections at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C, says "many of the Chinese theropods have complex structures that clearly cannot be explained away in that fashion." There are many other fossils that have been discovered with proto-feathers, for example the Shuvuuia, the fossil of which was found to contain decay products of beta-keratin, and not alpha-keratin. While beta-keratin is found both in feathers and many other cells of dinosaurs, the absence of alpha keratin means that what was found must have come from feathers, which do not contain alpha keratin. An extensive list of dinosaur fossils that have evidence of fossils can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Speciation is an instance of macro evolution. If two gene pools are split and evolve separately to the point where they can no longer interbreed, that is an example of macro evolution as well as speciation. 3. Lots of small changes is a convenient escape hatch, because it is how evolution works.
Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

1. All of the alleged transitional fossils are of dubious reliability. For example, dinosaur fossils that are allegedly "bird-dinosaurs" have fluff that can be mistaken for feathers, but they are actually collagen found within dinosaur skin. (1)Another example is the nebraska and piltdown men. They were all frauds.2. Speciation is not macroevolution because it is not between kinds.3. There is no fossil evidence showing how the diaphragm and air sacs can appear/disappear: "lots of small changes" is used as a convienient escape hatch.(1) P.J. Chen, Z.M. Dong, and S.N. Zheng, An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China, Nature
Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

1. This assertion is simply not true. There are many transitional fossils. Here are two links to lists of transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.transitionalfossils.com... The existence of these fossils is proof of evolution. 2. Speciation is very rare and takes centuries to occur, however it does occur. Here is a quote from Scientific American- "Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment." The idea of elephants turning into fruit flies demonstrates either reductio ad absurdum or a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution happens slowly, and the genetic mistakes that are made during reproduction are not nearly large enough to result in changes such as that. Even if one did occur it would probably just result in a miscarriage. 3. This argument is just an argument from personal incredulity. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and the theory of evolution is actually supported by the fact that they have changed since then. Lots of very small changes over a long time can result in a very different product.