BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should fund alternative energy research

1. TECHNOLOGY And the private sector has more technology? NASA has a lot of technology in solar energy. A lot more than the private sector. NASA could develop technology. But added to that, you ignored my argument that NASA could share technology and the private sector can't. So NASA can easily get MORE technology through trading that private sectors can't. 2. RISK So there is risk. In this instance, greater risk does not come greater reward. Not when there is only one goal, efficient solar power, we need to take the least amount of risk. We both agree in NASA. 3. Funding NASA could easily build and buy infrastructure. NASA, also an ignored agruement, can simply re-direct current funding. So NASA would take less of an increase. Furthermore, if the government is only investing in one company, their is no greater chance of success. NASA has technology can trade technology has less risk has less funding
The United States should fund alternative energy research

This debate has been condensed into a few individual arguments 1. Current Technology 2. Risk 3. Funding Now both 2 and 3 really fall into number 1. My opponent's arguments is this NASA lacks technology NASA takes more funding NASA has more risk My arguments so far have been NASA has technology NASA takes less funding NASA has less risk I would like to FURTHER clearify NASA's role in solar energy NASA employes scientists to work together and mkae tehcnological innovations NASA works together with other agencies to gather technology BUT THE KEY NASA works with private companies This is where a new argument is going to be put in NASA with funding would work better with private companies than funded provate corporations would work with NASA. Here is why. If a private corporation creates new technology, it becomes copyrighted, NASA needs permission to use it, and anyone else NASA is working with needs permission. Competing companies would not share technology, because they would lose profit. NASA gets funding, creates new technology, it becomes copyrighted, and NASA gives it to private corporations they are working with. So what I am saying is: NASA can share technology if they are directed the funding, while private corporations would not. So, onto the pats debates 1. Current Technology http://science.nasa.gov... partially off topic article, but gives proof NASA has technology present http://www.nasa.gov... shows gains made by NASA on solar technology NASA has plenty of technology that currently employ. NASA uses solar panels on the ISS and on satellites. NASA has been using solar panels since the first Mars Rover. NASA has used, and enhanced technology, thus, they have ample, and EXTRA technology that private corporations do not NASA 1, PVT 0 2. Risk NASA, if employed by the government, can not give unless the government gives up. Why? Because they answer to the government. Private Corporations, if funded by the government, can give up if they do not find the current workings profitable. They do not listen directly to the government. NASA 2, PVT 0 3. Funding NASA currently has a paycheck from the government. Government tells NASA to divert 10% from all programs into solar energy. Government gives NASA 10 million extra. (15 million comes from the diverted money) Government funds a private corporation 25 million. Government hires 3 private corporations. 25 million times 3 is 75 million PVT CORPORATION cost 50 million more than NASA. This is just an example with made-up numbers, but the premise is sound. NASA 3, PVT 0 As we can see, NASA can share technology, has technology, has no risk, and requires less funding. Thus, The government should not fund private companies for alternative energy.
The United States should fund alternative energy research

We all agree on the need for alternative energy. You claim private sector is better. You state: 1. Competing companies will yield better results 2. Govt. can can funding if company is bad 3. Large Gap in Technology 3. We both agree that we lack technology. We agree that we need technology. The private sector would need a lot of development. This means more funding, and less initiative. 3. ALTERNATIVE Let me add that as my opponent stated, we need technology. Who better to ask than NASA? Try to prove that NASA has a loss in technology. NASA has more satellites, more orbital objects, more scientists, and more time focused on technology. NASA can divert a larger amount of funding to solar power. NASA is the answer to technology. And since technology is needed, NASA is needed. 4. Production limited by funds You basically claim that the companies would find alternative energy with enough money. Sorry, but no duh! I could solve the energy crisis with an unlimited supply of funds. What we must look at is who could do more, in less time, with a higher chance of success, and less finding. As I have stated above, NASA can do everything better than private companies. You have some arguments against me: "1) Current projects already exist, and merely need funding 2) Less economic benefits 3) Less options for success" 1) If they need funding only, and already have projects, then why not NASA? NASA would take less funding and 0% risk. Thank you sir, you just proved my point. 2) Less economic benefits? Like what. Sorry, three words and argument do not make. What benefits, why? No argument made. NASA works for less and is only one outlet for funding, only multiple private sector. 3) Less options for success. Well, you claim all they need is funding. So why is there any question of success? NASA is cheaper, more effective, and going to solve the problem. Private industry is more expensive, chance of failure, and little initiative. We need NASA, we do not need private corporations to find alternative forms of energy.
The United States should fund alternative energy research

So here are your arguments "Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers." 1. oil dependence 2. economy 3. pollution 4. save money To debate this, I will debate the method of finding alternative energy. METHOD You say we should use government subsidies and funding. I am assuming this goes into businesses. How bout we go through government agencies to try and find alternative energy. Like NASA must research solar power. The branch of our military that works on building nuclear weapons must research nuclear power. This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal. This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic.
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

"I leave it up to the gentle voter to decide how likely it is that Con honestly believes that we should pass laws bringing back stoning to death for infidelity in virgin fiancees" As Domr has written in the comments, what is the point of having this debate, if at the end of it all, we are asked by Pro to just assume that Con has been lying about his answers? "Oh, one final round of questions (obviously I've no chance to speak to your answers)" I'll still answer them. :) "Do you think that answering "yes" to "Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest? " means that a lie would be equivalent to taking God's name in vain? I mean, swearing something before God that is not true seems to me to be a sin that would be aborrhent to God. Do you agree" I don't think the Bible says anything about lying while using God's name actually, so it's not really a sin. .. "What denomination of Christian are you? " "Do you believe that every word in the bible is the literal truth" I think the bible is true yes, but there are some metaphors used in verses. "Do you believe in talking snakes? " You mean Satan? Yes. "Do you believe that the Noah's Ark story happened literally as it is depicted in the Bible (despite scientific evidence to the contrary)? " What evidence is there that suggests the contrary? I believe it, as most reasonable scientists do. "Do you believe that one of every type of living animal today, including kangaroos, was on the Ark? " Again, I believe the Noah's Ark story completely. "Do you believe that Jonah spent time in a big fish's belly? " Yes. "Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, like in the Flintstones? " Like in the flinstones? Of course not. "Do you swear to God that all of your answers have been truthful? " Yes. "I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether Con has followed the rules of the debate or whether they deserve to lose for breaking the rules. I don't claim to have shown any hypocrisy, except that of Con claiming to believe that they are being honest when, in fact, they are not" It's an incredibly dishonest and rude debate tactic to attempt to convince voters that even though you gave no evidence, you proved that I am a hypocrite. Pro needed to meet his burden of proof, not just ask for a free win. Again, the voters need to decide if Pro *proved* that I am a hypocrite. Even if you think he spread doubt, that itself is not enough to me this large BOP. "I wish this debate had gone diffeerently! " As do I.
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

I ask you, gentle voter, to consider two facts:Fact 1When I asked Con this question:Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fiancées for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred?Con answered:Yes. Fact 2 In Round 1 I laid out clear rules:3. Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available roundThe voters are requested to vote accordingly should Con break the rules.I leave it up to the gentle voter to decide how likely it is that Con honestly believes that we should pass laws bringing back stoning to death for infidelity in virgin fiancees.Go for it, Con, use this last round to convince the World that you really do want to bring back public stoning. If the voters doubt that you do, you'll lose the debate.By the way, some sort of argument that you've won the debate because I haven't shown hypocrisy like I claimed I could, even if you've lied, really won't wash. I only claimed to be able to reveal hypocrisy if I was dealing with honesty... we'd have to redo the debate with somebody who was prepared to be honest to establish the resolution properly, if you have in fact lied. Sorry for the suggestion that you've lied if, in fact, you've been scrupulously honest.Oh, one final round of questions (obviously I've no chance to speak to your answers):Do you think that answering "yes" to "Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest?" means that a lie would be equivalent to taking God's name in vain? I mean, swearing something before God that is not true seems to me to be a sin that would be aborrhent to God. Do you agree?What denomination of Christian are you?Do you believe that every word in the bible is the literal truth (the original, before translation)?Do you believe in talking snakes?Do you believe that the Noah's Ark story happened literally as it is depicted in the Bible (despite scientific evidence to the contrary)?Do you believe that one of every type of living animal today, including kangaroos, was on the Ark?Do you believe that Jonah spent time in a big fish's belly?Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, like in the Flintstones?Do you swear to God that all of your answers have been truthful?I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether Con has followed the rules of the debate or whether they deserve to lose for breaking the rules.I don't claim to have shown any hypocrisy, except that of Con claiming to believe that they are being honest when, in fact, they are not. I wish this debate had gone diffeerently!
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

"Do you believe in God?" Yes, "Do you fear God?" I've experienced times in my life when I was afraid of God "Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest? Answering this question with a lie would be taking God's name in vain." I have been answering all of the questions posed towards me in this debate truthfully, yes. "I have to point out that I know many Christians and I don't know more than one or two who would be happy to make such controversial statements" I'm not sure how this is relevant to the debate. "Also, I have a suspicion that I am dealing with an atheist who is trying to win the debate by saying whatever silly thing is necessary so to do... but I guess, if it comes to that, I'll have to trust the voters to make up their own mind in the light of rule" Voters cannot vote for you based off of the belief that I am lying. You have the burden of proof in this debate to show that one who says, "Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so", is hypocritical. Voters do not vote affirmative on this debate until Pro actually proves that I am a hypocrite. Again, he has no valid reasons to think that I'm lying. "Do you think that wives should be as subservient to their husbands as you seem to be being to the Lord?" Yes "Do you think that this subservience should include not making moral judgements for themselves but accepting their husband's instruction on what they should consider right and wrong?" They should both follow the Bible's moral code. "Do you think that slaves should submit to their masters, even when those masters beat them unfairly?" Yes. I fully agree with what the bible verse. What do you mean by beating them unfairly? "Do you think that the only loophole for this is if they die within two days as a direct result of a beating they received from their masters and then get resuscitated?" It's totally legit to beat them as long as they don't die after a day or two but if they do then yes that's viable. It's the second to last round and my opponent has yet to show any good reason to think that I'm a hypocrite. Even if he does provide evidence next round, it's extremely poor conduct. Waiting to post the main argument of a case until the last round is a dishonest way to debate as it gives your opponent little chance to respond to them.
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

I don't know yet if you are a hypocrite, but I've got time...Do you believe in God?Do you fear God?Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest? Answering this question with a lie would be taking God's name in vain.I have to point out that I know many Christians and I don't know more than one or two who would be happy to make such controversial statements.Also, I have a suspicion that I am dealing with an atheist who is trying to win the debate by saying whatever silly thing is necessary so to do... but I guess, if it comes to that, I'll have to trust the voters to make up their own mind in the light of rule 3:3. Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available roundI'd also point out that even without that rule Con would lose on the grounds of demonstrating hypocrisy of the first order by making up all of the answers to the questions.A few more questions, then, just for fun:Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"Do you think that wives should be as subservient to their husbands as you seem to be being to the Lord?Do you think that this subservience should include not making moral judgements for themselves but accepting their husband's instruction on what they should consider right and wrong?1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."Do you think that slaves should submit to their masters, even when those masters beat them unfairly?Do you think that the only loophole for this is if they die within two days as a direct result of a beating they received from their masters and then get resuscitated? Or do you think that this loophole is not explicitly sanctioned so that they should go back to complete subservience?
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

"Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fianc"es for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred? If not, why not, since I see no biblical justification for relaxing this Mosaic law?" Yes. "Have you read the bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion?" Yes, I've read it multiple times. "Do you believe that parents should beat their children with rods?" It's used to give discipline to children. I believe it should get the job done without inflicting inappropriate or unnecessary damage to the child"s body. "Do you believe that children who insult or hit their parents should be put to death?" If they meet the conditions the Bible mentions then yes of course they should be stoned to death. "Do you believe that when people go to war they should kill all enemy men and non-virgin women then take the virgins and children as slaves?" Of course. They should save every virgin for themselves. "Have you ever eaten pig meat?" Not to my knowledge. Unless someone put pig meat into my food without me knowing, I don't believe I have. Am I a hypocrite?
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

Well,No, I am not going to start the hypocrite accusation quite yet. You clearly believe that the bible is a book of pure moral pronouncements; you are therefore certainly not hypocritical (and I will have to concede the debate) if you really do believe that and follow it through to its logical conclusion.But it would be hypcritical if you were to seem to have the position that the bible was the inerrant Word of God when you were discussing judgements of other people and that "belief" vanished or otherwise reduced when matters related more dircetly to yourself.I'd like to press the issue of the stoning of adultresses, whilst also adding some further lines of enquiry, so here goes:Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fiancées for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred? If not, why not, since I see no biblical justification for relaxing this Mosaic law?If you believe that the bible is the Word of God, it also follows that you will have studied the book very closely... I mean, if I had a genuine belief that I could read a book written by a supernatural deity of infinite power who I had accepted as my master, I think that I'd be pretty driven to read and reread the bible.Have you read the bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion?I suppose that I'm going to be on solid ground here:Do you believe that parents should beat their children with rods?Do you believe that children who insult or hit their parents should be put to death?Do you believe that when people go to war they should kill all enemy men and non-virgin women then take the virgins and children as slaves?Have you ever eaten pig meat?I could go on; but for now there's really no need. If I get honest answers to all of the questions so far, I think that I'll know where I stand... there's more than one way that I might proceed here, depending on the answers that I get.
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

"Okay, so... thank you for accepting, let's game on!" Indeed. I hope we both benefit from the discussion. Thank you for creating the debate Pro. "If you believe "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so" then it logically follows that you consider the bible to be the say-so about sin (defined as transgression against a deity). It follows that you consider the bible in some way to be the Word of God. It follows that when you read such verses as we find in Deuteronomy, you agree with their moral pronouncements. Here's one such verse from Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death"the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man"s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Do you agree, Con?" Yep. "Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?" Yes I do. I'm assuming my opponent will start his arguments about how I am a hypocrite in the next round. Thank you for reading this debate so far! Good luck Pro.
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

Okay, so... thank you for accepting, let's game on!If you believe "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so" then it logically follows that you consider the bible to be the say-so about sin (defined as transgression against a deity). It follows that you consider the bible in some way to be the Word of God. It follows that when you read such verses as we find in Deuteronomy, you agree with their moral pronouncements. Here's one such verse from Deuteronomy 22:23-24:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.Do you agree, Con?Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?For the record, I only have one direct question, as per the rules of the debate... I require Con to answer this question openly, honestly and immediately:Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?
Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

Hypocrisy: pretence of having beliefs that one does not actually possessCon, by agreeing to the debate, agrees to the following terms:1. Con will be a Christian who agrees that "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"2. Con in accepting will agree to use the definition given of hypocrisy3. Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available round4. If Pro demonstrates hypocrisy in Con, Pro winsThe voters are requested to vote accordingly should Con break the rules.