BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Energy

Sorry for the argument delay.My final argument is more about risks.Before talking about the risks, we can say that Nuclear power plants cost a lot for building them but it will recover energy and regain the money we lost. Nuclear power plants produce highly more energy then other energy plants. For the risks, I want to quote from the subject which is "Nuclear Energy for COUNTRIES". In Europe there are 185 nuclear centrals (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Russian Federation, UK...)(1) And I would like to remind you that every thermal or nuclear power plant can explode or pollute the world. So If we are arguing about countries, and we are, we need to look to the subject from another point of view. Imagine that you are a president of a country which exists in Europe and which doesn't have any nuclear power plant. But the country still has risks because of the other countries nuclear centrals. So that country has the risks of nuclear damage but not from their nuclear centrals, from different countries nuclear centrals. So that country can build their own centrals and use them. We can't demand other countries to close their centrals because, like France, Nuclear energy is their biggest energy sources (France: 58nuclear reactors, 63,130 MWe)(2)Moreover; Nuclear energy is a prove that science is still advancing. If we say no to this wonderful gift of science, we will stop the evolution of science. Don't stop the Nuclear Energy for future generations...Again sorry for the argument 4, it was a good debate, I wish my all respects to my opponent, thank you for debating.1:http://www.euronuclear.org...2:http://www.world-nuclear.org...
Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power has too many problems.Nuclear power plants can not be brought on line fast enough to prevent the rapid climate change disaster coming in less than 10 years (See Shootout: Do We Need To Restrict CO2 Emissions? ).Greenhouse gases are emitted throughout the nuclear fuel chain, from mining the uranium, its enrichment, transportation and the construction of the plants.Nuclear plants are too expensive. They cost at least $6 billion each.They can potentially have catastrophic radiological releases in case of a serious accident or a terrorist attack from the piles of radioactive waste stored at each site.Use of nuclear power by the U.S. will encourage nuclear proliferation by third-world countries and often leads to nuclear weapon development and the risk of nuclear war.There are cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available that can produce our electricity without using nuclear or fossil fuels.All reactors release radiation into the air, water and soil. Our national standards are inadequate in protecting the workers or our most vulnerable citizens, our children.Reactors, with the piles of nuclear materials, are prime terrorists targets. They are not protected nearly as well enough.The entire nuclear fuel chain generates lots of long-lasting radioactive waste. This includes 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste from each of the current 103 nuclear reactors in the U.S. each year.There is currently no acceptable solution for disposal of radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, the site selected for the permanent storage, is not scientifically suitable.
Nuclear Energy

I'm in favour for nuclear energy.For economical reasons, nuclear energy has strong benefits. Like my opponent said, nuclear power plants are expensive to build and we need to use energy for building it. But the main mistake that we make is we are looking too close to this subject. Nuclear power plant is an energy source which can give us highly more energy then others. If we compare a nuclear power plant with thermal power plant, we can clearly see that nuclear energy will gain us what we lost while we're building the centrals. And the ending of the fossil fuels are really close(1). We're dependent on thermal power and fuels so nuclear energy will be a useful hand of help.For environmental reasons, nuclear energy has many radioactive wastes. But I think that we can agree on something: The worlds most important problem is Global Worming. It will destroy us slowly. And that's why we're our children to be careful and be aware of the effects of global warming. Now whit this fabulous energy type, we have a chance to and the global warming. For the effects of nuclear power plants, I need you to know that 95% of the energy generated by nuclear burn up is without any waste of CO2. So we should use nuclear energy to stop our biggest problem in the world.For the risks, Nuclear radiation is risky but the radiation will leave the central only if there is a crack in the central. We had seen it in Chernobyl, but now, we have a better technology and better scientist. We need to trust on our people to make this energy useful. Secondly., radiation is an important factor but we can't prove that the cancer is caused by the nuclear radiation. Of course it will effect the human health but ,we, people experience a lot of technological devices in our daily lives, like phones or televisions. Are we going to get rid of them just because of radiation? And the cancers are highly caused because of portable telephones, especially(2). Radars, satellite stations and microwave ovens operate also high radio frequencies. 1:http://www.forbes.com...2:http://www.cancer.gov...
Nuclear Energy

For me nuclear energy is not necessary for the following factors. 1.Economically:- Nuclear power plants normally have very high capital costs for building the plants and why to build these plants when conventional sources of energy such as electricity are available at very low cost,the cost of fuel is also rising day by day.The cost of uranium has also increased .In May 2009 an update of a heavily-referenced 2003 MIT study was published. This said that "since 2003 construction costs for all types of large-scale engineered projects have escalated dramatically. The estimated cost of constructing a nuclear power plant has increased at a rate of 15% per year heading into the current economic downturn. This is based both on the cost of actual builds in Japan and Korea and on the projected cost of new plants planned for in the United States. Capital costs for both coal and natural gas have increased as well, although not by as much. The cost of natural gas and coal that peaked sharply is now receding. Taken together, these escalating costs leave the situation [of relative costs] close to where it was in 2003." The overnight capital cost was given as $4000/kW, in 2007 dollars. Applying the same cost of capital to nuclear as to coal and gas, nuclear came out at 6.6 c/kWh, coal at 8.3 cents and gas at 7.4 cents, assuming a charge of $25/tonne CO2 on the latter. Uranium: 8.9 kg U3O8 x $146 US$ 1300Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $13 US$ 98Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $155 US$ 1132Fuel fabrication: per kg US$ 240Total, approx: US$ 27702. Environment:- If we see environmentally high level radioactive waste are being left open in the rivers,seas and other water bodies because of which many rare species of fishes fishes are being killed at a faster rate ,the nuclear fleet creates about 100,000 metric tons of solid waste yearly also these wastes are not being removed regularly because of which the environmental conditions are depleting at a faster rate.3.Risks:-The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light---186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny.Radiation occurs naturally in our environment; a typical person is, and always has been struck by 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources, and an average medical X-ray involves being struck by 100 billion. While this may seem to be very dangerous, it is not, because the probability for a particle of radiation entering a human body to cause a cancer or a genetic disease is only one chance in 30 million billion (30 quintillion).http://en.wikipedia.org....http://en.wikipedia.org....
Nuclear Energy

In my opinion Nuclear Energy is necessary for countries. Before we discuss on energy or environmental effects, we need to make sure that nuclear energy is possible to use for all the countries. Of course, that will happen with money. When we look closer, nuclear energy makes a lot of difference in our world of economy. But if we look generally, it will gain us what we lost. Because the energy which is made by thermal power plant is a lot lesser than the nuclear energy. So we can say that the centrals of nuclear power is cost a lot but the energy we gain with that will equal the difference. Now for the environmental effects. Nuclear Energy isn't polluting the world as thermal power plants. Thermal energy causes the global warming which is the most important world discussion and the most dangerous natural disaster of our generation. There is not any carbon dioxide pollution with nuclear energy. So this energy do not emit harmful gases. Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to produce electricity. It does not cause any ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain like thermal power plants.(1) I think that if we can use an energy type which harms our environment a lot and which does not produce enough energy as nuclear power, why can't we use nuclear power? Nuclear energy has a lot of risks, it is true and everybody knows it but in my opinion, mankind did a lot of dangerous things. We can't improve ourselves without taking risks. We are going to learn our mistakes for the future generations. We can look at Chernobyl disaster. The disaster really caused a lot of radioactive waste.But noting will work perfectly with the first try. The main risk of the nuclear power is the nuclear weapons. So if we stop using them, there is not any fatal risks. You can ask that "if the reactor explodes..", but the technology we use in past and in present, there is a huge difference between them. We can know and control what our abilities to do with nuclear powers. If we compare the energy made by thermal and nuclear, we will understand the difference. Of course there is renewable energy plants like solar or hydro but these are not making enough energy as nuclear power. A typical reactor of uranium convert 500.000mj/kg but for oil the number is just 45-46mj/kg(2). Also,we have to use 2 million grams of oil or 3 million grams of coal to equal the power contained in 1 gram of uranium fuel(3).To sum up, Nuclear energy is necessary for all the countries and it is likely more useful then other types of power plants.I wish my best lucks to my opponent1.http://www.fi.edu...2.http://www.world-nuclear.org...3.http://occupywallst.org...
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Should be impossible to accept. I'll take an opponent in a few days. Comment if you're interested. Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. Definitions will be within the debate and are up for debate. This is intended to be an LD debate. If you aren't familiar with how LD debate works, then I'd advise you not accept this. All styles of LD cases are acceptable. Round Structure will be as such:Round One: Pro accepts and presents their case. Round Two: Con case and rebuttals, Pro rebuttalsRound Three: Con rebuttals, pro rebuttals.
Phones

Cell phones cause people to die. Family members lose their own children, own siblings or parents. They have to go their rest of their life with out those people. Yes phones do need to be used during emergencies, that's ok. But it's not right to text and drive or use your phone just to call someone. If you look down for a split second to read a text message, in that split second a little kid can come running out from behind a car because his ball went in the street. Then next thing you know your sitting in a jail cell for murder. And that family lost their precious little five year old. If your texting and looking down and back up every other second and the next second you look up there is a car in a dead stop on the high way and you don't have enough reaction time to swerve, to you re end them and kill a full car that has the whole family in it. You are responsible for all the deaths of the family and your in jail for just that one message. So therefore texting and calling while operating a vehicle Is not right.
Phones

People should use cell phones for various reason.1. Cell Phone calls People can get important cell phone calls while driving. You also have over the road truck drivers who need to use their cell phones to make a call to their loved ones. You also the inciddents like oh hey there is a rape going on over there and I need to call 911 to save this girl.2. Awareness Cell phones keep people aware of what's going on during the night and helps keep them awake.3. GPS People need to use the GPS on their phones to help get them places and this is important to get people to get where they need to be.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. I agree with the above definition of romantic love. 2.Romantic love enables two individuals to be committed to one another. 3. This commitment is possible with only one other individual because it involves chemistry, attachment, the time and energy, and the security needed to pursue a life together. 4. In order to properly describe romantic love, it is important to differentiate between love and lust. Lust is a craving of a sexual nature, which usually dissipates once gratified, but can return a few hours or days later. Love is an intense feeling of affection or care towards an individual. Lust is short-term, while love is a lifelong commitment to one person. It is possible to feel feelings of lust and attachment to other people, but this should not be confused for romantic love. 5. Chemistry and attraction produces feelings of lust, however, once those feelings disappear and we still feel deep affectionate for our partner, then it is love. 6. Love is honesty and a commitment that involves you putting your all into a relationship, therefore there is not enough time, nor does one have the energy and ability to love many romantically. 7. Psychologically, "loving" two people at the same time would cause dissonance and therefore extreme pain to an individual thinking about their partner with someone else. This also signals in the brain that something is amiss. 8. Research done on individuals who claim to love multiple partners shows that they created two personas, and treated each partner differently- making sure to separate the two. This experience is not only stressful but takes the pleasure out of any relationships. 9. The more you love a person, the more time and energy you will give them. Romantic love needs to be worked for, it is not readily available, and also not easy to find. 10. Concurrent love is problematic because it is not very stable, research done in Mormon communities shows that no family has successful reached the ideal of "loving everyone equally" for the long term. 11. Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person romantically. After both m opponent and I made our arguments, I have not conceded on any of my premises. As a result of my opponents arguments and claims, and my counter-arguments, I stand by my conclusion that being in love romantically with multiple people at the same time is not possible.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

The meaning of being romantically in love, is to express pleasurable feelings, while having emotional security and attraction towards another person. This should not be confused with lust, infatuation, desired attraction or platonic love. 2.Love is infinite which allows a person"s heart and emotion to express romantic love for more than one person at one time. 3.Being romantically in love allows a person to emotionally form the feeling of being romantically in love with more than one person simultaneously whether they are dead, alive, divorced broken up or separated. The emotion of romantic love also allows these feeling to be possess inside of a person for a period of time, even if they are not committed within their relationship. 4.You don"t necessarily have to be involved in a relationship to be romantically in love with a person, for being romantically in love is just a feeling that does not hold a contract or a rule. However, time and energy invested into a person to create chemistry is conducive to falling romantically in love with a person, and that can be achieved through multitasking and devoting yourself to all of them at once. Thus making it possible for anyone to be romantically in love with multiple people at once. 5.Open relationships, and Mormon marriages are proof that it is possible to be romantically in love with multiple people and succeed long-term. 6.Loving multiple people romantically at once is possible, and has been done throughout the history of life.
Winter is better than Summer.

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and I hope that this will be a friendly debate. " summer causes more happiness then winter." -Not necessarily. Our summers are getting longer and more warm because of global warming, and " Summer is the growing season in which we grow all the crops that we either sell or keep to ourselves to use [3]. However, Winter does not have any particular usefulness in this area since most pants die." -All the seasons are needed in the circle of life, and winter is the hibernation time for all the animals who have been stocking up and working hard during spring, summer, AND fall. Also, my opponent used "pants" instead of "plants". Point for spelling and grammar. " Summer is the the time when most schools let out for three months thus, the majority of students are made happiung by this, and summer becomes a season of joy and free time away from academics." -Not everybody hates school, you know. There are some kids who enjoy school, and also, HELLO? Have you ever heard of summer school? Or kumon or strict parents......... " the male half of the human species becoming more happier in summer then any other part of the year. This is due to the temperature increase in summer. The female half of our species become more hot and therefore, where less clothing and the change becomes attractive to the men and boys." -Firstly-Hello? Have you ever heard of global warming? In the countries closest to the equator, the heat becomes almost unbearable in summer. Also, not every girl gets hotter or wears attractive clothing during the summer. There are problems of sunstroke, heatstroke, sunburn and all that stuff. Not to mention bugs and spiders and grass snakes (big ones aren't creepy-only grass snakes because they're so little and they are easily hidden.). Now to present my case: 1. Winters are rare. The majority of the world doesn't even get winters, or at least to see real snow in person. There will always be tropical weather vacations somewhere in the world, all year-long, but winters only last about 3 months. 2.Winter is FUN! In winter there's tobogganing, there's skiing, there's throwing snowballs at people, there's building forts, there's making snowmen, and there are also holidays in Winter such as Christmas and Hanukkah and New Year's, and Family Day............and it's also movie season! 3. The food. The title says it all. Hot soups, warm beverages like coffee and/or hot chocolate, tea, and other things too! That's all. Good luck!
Winter is better than Summer.

I will define Winter and Summer as follows:Summer-- the period from the summer solstice (usually June 20 or 21 in the Northern Hemisphere) to the autumn equinox [1]. Winter-- The period from the Winter solstice to the next equinox [2]. I will be doing this from the Season schedule in the U. S. A. I add these facts because my opponent didn't these specifics are vital. Contention 1: Growing SeasonI will be conducting this debate with the utilitarian point of view. In otherwards I will be defending summer as more useful then winter or that summer causes more happiness then winter. This first contention will be in defense of Summer because it is the growing season in which we grow all the crops that we either sell or keep to ourselves to use [3]. However, Winter does not have any particular usefulness in this area since most pants die. Contention 2: Vacation. Summer is the the time when most schools let out for three months thus, the majority of students are made happiung by this, and summer becomes a season of joy and free time away from academics. Contention 3: Girls and clothing. This last contention will be from the stand point of guys or the male half of the human species becoming more happier in summer then anyother part of the year. This is due to the temperature increase in summer. The female half of our species become more hot and therefore, where less clothing and the change becomes attractive to the men and boys. This increase in happiness isin half the population of Earth means Summer is better then Winter since winter means women put on more clothing to stay warm. I will now await my opponent's response. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald Trump elect-president is bad for Black American and Latinos

I strongly believe Donald Trump is most likely going to reach out more for white voters and not Black Americans or Latinos. Black American are among most poorest in the U.S.A and still live in dilapidated houses and more are involved in crime than whites. Like all previous American Presidents the Black agenda will be negated and pushed aside. In the case of Latinos there are far to many Latinos who are illegal in the U.S.A as result they will be be deported back to Mexico. Donald Trump President Elect is not going to differentiate whether you are decent family or hardcore criminal all will be deported back to Mexico. He is going to build the Wall and that will keep out all illegal immigrants from Mexico. All I can say is that its going get worse for Black Americans and Latinos in his four year term as a President.
Donald Trump elect-president is bad for Black American and Latinos

I am not being rude but , are you an astrologer ? It depends on 2 things one is Trump and the other is God . But okay , I have accept this challenge so will complete I with using my full brain power . Donald Trump offered better insight into his "New Deal" plan for black America through an exclusive release to Media Take Out. The plan first revealed at a Trump rally last month in North Carolina touts minority outreach through a 10-point plan of "urban renewal". In a post titled, "Donald Trump REACHED OUT TO US . . . He's Offering This 'NEW DEAL' To Black Americans . . . 1. Great Education Through School Choice 2. Safe.Communities 3. Equal Justice under the law 4. Tax Reforms to Create Jobs and Lift up People and Communities. 5. Financial Reforms to Expand Credit to Support New Job Creation. 6. Trade That Works for American Workers. 7. Protection from Illegal Immigration. 8. New infrastructure investment . 9. Protect the African-American Church. 10. America First Foreign Policy.
Immigration is changing rural England life

I refute under the circumstances.. That "the l werd" has continued to prolong a debate which has been denied she has constantly questioned this debate and only when appearences and personal statements got involved she fought back this arguement .. that i couldnt be bothered to read... I refuse debate with the l werd as i find her very contridictive and arrogant, she ridiculed my debate and now wants to challenge me because she is continuosly been fought back at and dosent like it. she hasnt put into account different opinions.. and as basically wasted her time on an arguement simply because she cant see two sides of a story which is in need to be a good debater. I withheld this arguement.. and so wish to delete it after so many misunderstandings regarding it.