BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

"If we try to save the environment before we focus directly on poverty, we will end up solving poverty in the process of saving the environment by producing green jobs and ending the zero sum game that traps developing nations in cycles of poverty." --This is an example of when they are not in conflict. --- As for the middle part, I hope my opponent will post the links to sources that say these things that she claims. I don't see a new disease-ridden Dark Age on the immenent horizon. --- "The other economic benefit of environmental solutions is that we can end the struggle for energy resources that currently separates the rich from the poor." I do believe that this would fall on my side of the resolution. Ending rich/poor disparity = global poverty reduction. --- My only contention is that prioritizing poverty reduction makes economic sense. The environment in general has the ability to 'bounce back'. For countless years the earth has been plagued by natural disasters, plagues, droughts, people, etc. After all of this, the environment comes out fine. Nature adapts rather well to attacks on it and survives. On the other hand, poverty tends to create more poverty. Entire continents like Africa fell behind the rest of the community and from there look how they've ended up. Most minority communities in the United States came here with very little money. 100 and 200 years later, look where they've ended up. Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities. What example can you give of a society where poverty just worked itself out? There are none. Therefore we can come to the conclusion that; when in conflict we ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because it is a more urgent need and will compound more quickly if not fixed. If you had 2 debts, both of $1,000 dollars, which would you pay off first? The one that increases by $100 dollars annually, or the one that decreases by $100 dollars?
When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

"Also the fact that if we let this continue all our fresh water will run into the ocean" You mean like it has been doing for thousands of years via rivers? Don't worry. Al Gore invented this thing called the 'water cycle' to save the environment. Through the nifty concepts of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, that ocean water is no longer wasted; it comes right back to us. --- "if we switched to green jobs then we would reduce and ultimately get rid of the zero-sum game that is happening. Green jobs will do this, and it will give jobs to the people in poverty. " In such cases, poverty and the environment are not in conflict. This has nothing to do with the resolution. Not to mention, CON dropped this in her last speech. --- Voters, I provided one simple contention, that prioritizing poverty over environment makes economic sense. CON never remotely tried to rebut this.
When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

In this 3rd round the is really two main things you should look are. --- To please my opponent I will drop my argument about the diseases, but we still have to issues with the fact that the glaciers will melt causing the sea levels to rise. Also the fact that if we let this continue all our fresh water will run into the ocean and we will have no water to drink, and we all know that water is a basic need for not just humans but animals and other organisms on the earth. If my opponent brings up the fact that we can just use desalinization methods but that is ridiculously expensive and time consuming. --- We all so have the issue the fact that the places that have the most poverty in them are at the end of the food chain, that they are falling short in the zero-sum energy game that is happening with energy. if we switched to green jobs then we would reduce and ultimately get rid of the zero-sum game that is happening. Green jobs will do this, and it will give jobs to the people in poverty. Even if they don't have an education, they can work as a janitor or something like that. There are many small jobs that they can do. Also, because these are renewable energy sources these jobs will always exist, unlike oil which will eventually run out leaving millions unemployed. --- That is why I have to stand in firm opposition of the resolution.
Cannibas should be legalized in the U.S.

Cannibas is a drug. And the reason for this being is because of the side affects that it has on the human body. Any normal synthetic can also be abused in the process of which it is supposed to heal or be used for medicinal purposes. However, this is an underground empire that has caused the death of many, many people all around the world. You have drugs involved in the military industrial complex. And you have it being smuggled over the border from Canada and Mexico. The street value only turns this into an illegal trade. Think of this as a gold that affects a persons mental state or mind. Do you honestly believe that this is the right thing to do knowing that people are often substance abusers. I think the law should stay.
Cannibas should be legalized in the U.S.

Again, marijuana is a drug. Yes, it can be used for medicinal purposes and has proven to be a rather affective form of physical stilumation. But the harsh reality remains. People use drugs to acquire money. AND when this drug of choice is used for monetary gain, familes have to suffer the consequences of people who make bad decisions. Marijuana is also a lifestyle. And this lifestyle consists of cultural debauchery, drunkeness, rogue capitalism, and illegal trade. This is a business that will never die. So the truth remains, drugs affect our lives and our state of mind. Marijuana. although not as mild as others, yet highly addictive, is no different.
Cannibas should be legalized in the U.S.

My opponent only has one source. The source does not prove any of his points other then the fact that Marijuana is a drug. He has given no proof of why it should be illegal and how it harms others. I however, have proved that legalizing it would help society. Until my opponent Inferno gives reasonable sources for his claims I see no reason why we (especialliy the voters), should actually take it seriously.
Cannibas should be legalized in the U.S.

Cannibas is a drug. And the reason for this being is because of the side affects that it has on the human body. Any normal synthetic can also be abused in the process of which it is supposed to heal or be used for medicinal purposes. However, this is an underground empire that has caused the death of many, many people all around the world. You have drugs involved in the military industrial complex. And you have it being smuggled over the border from Canada and Mexico. The street value only turns this into an illegal trade. Think of this as a gold that affects a persons mental state or mind. Do you honestly believe that this is the right thing to do knowing that people are often substance abusers. I think the law should stay. See site for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug) My last comment is my argument.
White women are prettier than asian women

I think that there is no way to successfully decide this issue. However I personally feel that Asian women can be just as pretty, just as tall, and just as fun to be around as any white women and often times are. Thus my voting Paradigm in this round circles around the issue of racism. While dorobo's case isn't overly racist it does classify a difference between Caucasian females and Asian females in three broad stereotypes. I submit that in order for our world to better function, for us to coexist and prevent such exciting events as the holocaust, we need to break down as many racial stereotypes as possible. The idea that Caucasian females and Asian females are equal is of a greater calling. Danke
Sea Walls

You're not winning that easily! Sorry I missed the last round, but I'm still going to fight to win this debate." but may I ask why do we need them?"So you're asking why we need to protect cities against tidal waves? Okay.. tidal waves damage houses, buildings, vegetation and roads. Look at this image: As you can see, there was a lot of destruction caused, which could have been reduced by sea walls." "we" need them because some people want to invest in a expensive house that will ineffably be destroyed by the waves. Like I said some people are lacking common sense when the build/buy along the beach/beaches cliff."Some clarification would be great. I don't see how people who buy houses on the coast are lacking common sense, as with the installation of sea walls they won't be washed away. " people want to invest in a expensive house that will ineffably be destroyed by the waves."Seems like you're arguing my side of the debate here... "we use roads every day, they are a MUCH NEEDED commute system, houses, they are more NEEDED than sea walls" It seems like you haven't understood my point. What I was saying was that even though sea walls are expensive, it is worth it because the cost of repairing roads should a tidal wave occur, is higher. It's like, if someone was going to steal your $1000 car and an alarm system cost $90, it would be illogical to say that getting the alarm system was too costly. I agree that roads are very much needed, which is why we should treasure them and protect them with sea walls.In no way did I state or believe that sea walls should priorotise above roads though. "once again a sea wall in NOT going to protect against a tsunami!"Agreed.... care to quote a part of my argument that says that the will? I just stated that they would reduce the impact, not stop them completely. " but, do you really think that sea walls are going protect us from tsunamis?"No I don't. Check my response to your previous quote ^."No they truly don't "reduce" anything except the budget of the home owners and govt.".... Reduce the budget of homeowners? How so? Also, like I sad: there is an increasingly huge chance that a tidal wave will occur due to climate change, and if anything will reduce the government's budget it's going to be repairing all that damage! Sea walls are relatively cheap, compared to repairing houses, roads and conpensating families.Also, you didn't really rebut my point about beach traffic, so I guess I've won that clash point!I look forward to your response.
Sea Walls

[b]"Sea walls do protect against small tidal waves"[/b] Right I do understand that, but may I ask why do we need them? Ohh wait I know, "we" need them because some people want to invest in a expensive house that will ineffably be destroyed by the waves. Like I said some people are lacking common sense when the build/buy along the beach/beaches cliff. [b]It is even more costly to repair roads, houses, office blocks and compensate families if a tsunami or tidal wave damages a town or part of a city.[/b] Ummm we use roads every day, they are a MUCH NEEDED commute system, houses, they are more NEEDED than sea walls... And once again a sea wall in NOT going to protect against a tsunami! [b]"With climate change becoming increasingly dangerous, the chance of tidal waves and tsunamis occurring are significantly higher."[/b] Haha! Not to sound rude but, do you really think that sea walls are going protect us from tsunamis? How about you look at this picture http://www.google.com... This was a tsunami in Mayiko and it don't look like th sea walls were doing much of anything.. [b]"Sea walls will reduce busy traffic on beaches, therefore allowing wildlife such as turtles and endangered species in rock pools to thrive."[/b] No they truly don't "reduce" anything except the budget of the home owners and govt. Ohh here is a little something on eroding walls and how they effect the people http://articles.latimes.com...
Sea Walls

Rebuttal: "Over time the wall will erode" Just because something isn't permanent doesn't mean it's not worth installing. Even though hillside forestation isn't permanent, it is still done because it is an effective way to stop avalanches, in the way that sea walls are effective at reducing the impact of tidal waves and tsunamis. "Costly to maintain" It is even more costly to repair roads, houses, office blocks and compensate families if a tsunami or tidal wave damages a town or part of a city. "Now this debate is both a problem of people who live on the coast and people such as environmentalists," Sea walls will reduce busy traffic on beaches, therefore allowing wildlife such as turtles and endangered species in rock pools to thrive. "Sea walls do not protect against tsunamis, or anything of that nature." Sea walls do protect against small tidal waves, that is the whole point of them! It also reduces the impact of tsunamis and larger tidal waves, even if they don't toally stop them (1) There have been numerous accounts of towns being protected from tidal waves by sea walls. With climate change becoming increasingly dangerous, the chance of tidal waves and tsunamis occurring are significantly higher. Sea walls are an investment in our future! 1. http://www.slideshare.net...
Sea Walls

The Pros and Cons of Sea walls Cons: Pros: Expensive to build Absorbs impact of the waves Over time the wall will erode Visually unattractive Protects the land close to the ocean Costly to maintain Can be expensive to obtain and transport (Overall it's a cost problem) Now this debate is both a problem of people who live on the coast and people such as environmentalists, tourists who go to our beaches, ect. Now for the people who buy houses along the beach I believe that they lack in the common sense department. They practically WASTE their money on buying a extremely expensive house along the beach/along cliffs when inevitably the sea walls will erode, or a huge wave might come slamming down on their homes.. Sea walls do not protect against tsunamis, or anything of that nature. Sea walls are a type of coastal management here are other types of coastal management: Groynes: Are wooden barriers that are built at a right angle to the beach. This absorbs energy which reduces cliff erosion (only one that's not that costly) Sea Walls: Are walls that are built along the front of cliffs, the often protect land (homes stores ect.). This can cause the erosion of the material at the base of the wall. Revetments: Wooden barriers built towards the rear of the beaches to protect the base of the cliffs Rock armor/boulder barriers: Placed along the base of a cliff to absorb energy from waves. Gabsions: Where rocks and boulders are surrounded in this type of mesh and absorbs the energy from the waves Off-shore breakwater: Large concrete blocks and boulders located off shore and are use to change the direction of the waves But will be only debating about sea walls not th other types of coastal management. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Adolf Hitler was a lazy leader.

I do congratulate Pro since his knowledge of the Fuhrer government is clearly superior to that of mine. .. And his demonstration of such knowledge occurs again due to the mistake I have made (in designating a "legislation body", despite the presence of a chancellor and preside (the Fuhrer) and his accessory officials. .. I do welcome Pro to the site, but will give him a few tips before I end this debate humbly. I do urge voters to vote for Pro as he has clearly refuted my weak arguments successfully. .. Again, as I stated, even the consideration of Hitler's military doggedness and obsession on conquering and annexing lands (a sign of diligence, that is contrary to laziness) does not negate the resolution in its entirety. .. .As I stated in the comments, this debate was at least an experience for learning, which is another asset of debating. I do hope Pro continue to use his apparently extensive knowledge to benefit in the debates on this site. I do apologize again for the voters, since this situation is sad--an entire debate of historical discussion and even a game of semantics has been averted to perfunctory rounds of forfeit and acceptance.
Adolf Hitler was a lazy leader.

I thank Con for his acknowledgement. Just to clarify, Hitler did have the ability to issue/pass laws without consenting with the parliament as that was what the Enabling Act allowed him to do. Then, by banning all other political parties, there was no real legislation body so Hitler (as Chancellor + President = Fuhrer) did of course have to sign off on the laws and was the only one who could do so but as I had previously stated, he wasn't often involved in the direct formulation of said laws or indeed their implementation. I thank Con again for his good sportsmanship.
Adolf Hitler was a lazy leader.

I do apologize to my opponent, but I must concede. I have been analyzing his evidence and found it to be sufficient to erase my doubt that the resolution is correct. I apologize, again, since it has been universally acknowledged that Hitler did not pay a great role in the day-to-day adminstration, and was, as assigned by the Enabling Act, the power to issue laws [but no direct right to truly pass them without the consent of the legislation body]. In addition, during my course of research, I did learn that Hitler himself was not efficient in either engaging in paper work or even creating delegations, to the point that he, as Pro stated, let adminstrators and members of the bureaus to continually work and even consign laws in adherence to Hitler's writings and speeches. I understand that my opponent, who was seeking a lively debate, will be disappointed, but I do sincerely mean that I find little evidence contrary to your claims.Even the proposition that Hitler did engage, persistently, in the fields of military and combat does not negate the solution as it has been shown that he was lenient in all other fields, making him a 'lazy dictator'. Indeed, the very structure of the "ministrial beaucracy" does give weight to this assertion, which is overwhelming in itself. I congratulate Pro for his knowledge and for his victory. I encourage voters to vote for Pro...for I can find little evidence to support my own claims, and would wish to forfeit this round, and the next.Again, I apologize to Pro if he is disappointed. I do regret forfeiting this round, but, despite my best efforts, I have little justification for my side. As to the debate, I suggest voters to vote for Pro, via forfiet. In the meantime, while I have lost, I have nevetheless learned a few historical facts about one of the most notorious totalarian leaders of the second half of the century.
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Wow your cool. Are you really trying to put me down? May I ask why? Is it because that a girl is more intelligent than you? Anyways I think a good question to ask right now is "You mad bro?". Really though, you must not know the basics of how a debate should be, its meant to be civil and right now I bet you feel like the retarded kid who laughs when he farts in the bathtub. Anyways have any more put downs?
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Well I'm so glad that think that way.. You must be ignorant of the feeling of having a teacher in your life that cares and doesn't put you on some "one way of learning things" program.. When you have a teacher, they conform the way they teach to accommodate each student and make sure they understand the curriculum. Once again I'm in love with technology and I do think that it makes things a lot easier, but I think our generation OVER USES it (in school).
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Maybe in this case you're right but I'm debating in general on how computers can't necessarily effect your learning, not your little problem at school you need to vent about. I'm 14, by the way. Computers are made to make everything more simple and have endless possibilities, everything is limited by the user. The computers aren't getting in the way of your learning, YOU are. Your mind was made to accept the whole teacher/student relationship bullcrap, if you used computers as your main learning tool since you started school you would get used to the idea, I'm sure, and probably be doing better because of all the experience you've had with a computer (ie. you wouldn't have to vent on a website and always have to think about how a teacher's one on one is better). Basically what I'm saying is that it's ALWAYS the user. Never the computer. There will always be somebody more computer savy than the other (ie. I'm positive that includes me > you) and if your brain was taught to accept the idea before starting the whole teacher/student crap.
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Yeah that't simply it, I'm too stupid to figure out the basics of a computer. Well sorry to break it to your but I'm quite computer savvy, and I'm not saying that your wrong about how computers are useful at all, I actually love the idea that technologically is incorporated in schools. But I don't like it when we loose that teacher/student interaction (or "bond" if you whim) over it, the way you get the FULL experience of school is by learning from a teacher that you respect, look up to, and challenges you, my generation lacks that because kids now are learning more from a computer then from the person that's meant to be guiding them. What I truly think is programs that teachers assign students for a learning aid (such as LearningUpgrade, @Hometutor ect.) is just a way to escape the whole "Get to know you" deal. I rather learn from a person that can explain thing's that I don't get and MAKE me understand, instead of just searching a bunch of bs that doesn't even explain it to how I learn. Now once again I want to state that technology is a extremely a useful tool and I don't know what I would do without it, But I feel like we are loosing the real learning experience, I rather do everything on paper and learn from a teacher that know's how each student learns because they have some sort of communication/interaction instead of learning off of some program and not retaining any information. Or maybe I can't truly learn from a program because I'm some dumbass who can't control a computer.
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Technology is in no way inferior to the good ol' pen and paper in any way. Computers are a faster method of doing everything, you can't simply blame the computers for your peer's lack of experience with the technology. They're either simply not used to it and still need to adapt to it or are to stupid to know how to start a new Word Document. This is just like those fools that believe in a god; it's there way or the highway. Technology has no negative affect, it's the user controlling the computer.
Too much usage of computers are getting in the way of a real learning experience

Well I am a thirteen years old and in the eighth grade (please don't let my age persuade you that I am not capable of crushing someone older then myself in a debate.) Well I attend school that is mostly reliant on technology. For example my algebra teacher told me that she envisioned her class going completely digital. I found that very odd considering that (most) kids my age do not retain information from a computer as quickly as she wanted us too. Well our class has now transformed into her dream class, we do , tests, practice work, homework and anything in between on computers. Now that transformation has happened, most of her class is failing or barley grasping the information. Ohh did I fail to mention that the way we write notes, is basically copying down the things she writes on the Promethean board to a student version PPT (PowerPoint)? Well yup! That's her amazing way of teaching a group of kids.. Hilarious right? Well if my way of thinking is in complete disarray, then I hope my challenger will (or at least attempt) to convince me otherwise.