BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My first source shows beyond a resonable doubt man-made climate change exists. [0] My second and third and forth source show that climate change is a threat. [1][2] I know my argument is short, but when you got peer reviewed articles as source stating your claim, there is no reason to make a longer argument. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. " [3] Thanks for the debate. Sources0. http://iopscience.iop.org...1. http://www.nature.com...2. http://www.nature.com...3. http://www.nature.com...
Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization.

Sorry about not posting...i was getting ready for a lincoln douglass tournement... not my best type of debate... so here it goes: First point) "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but since the establishment of the UN there have been many wars. Why? They didn't have enough power sometimes, and others they just chickened out, so to speak." When we look to this we see that none of this is sourced or quoted. When we look to the facts what we see are completely different actions, the united nations for instance has troops in the darfur region so they can protect the aid that is being distributed. Second Point)the rwanda genocide, there were not enough U.N. soldiers, and there were soldiers there, but the united states felt that this situation would escalate into another vietnam 'conflict'and would not send any more troops. Third Point)'If you can't save them how can you save the successing generation' If we look to the facts again, it says something different, not only has the u.n. saved millions of lives besides lowering the child death rate to make sure there is a succeding generation, the united nations has also raised the literacy rate throughout the world so that these kids who grow up can be educated leaders so they themselves will understand the atrocities of their childhood. The united nations can't change the way the current generation thinks. they can imprison them to make sure that these people do no more harm such as Jean Kambanda who was put on trial at the international criminal tribune (part of the un) so when we look to it they are preventing future wars, and the cold war was not an actual war hence the name 'cold'. And for the vietnam arguement, it was a conflict that was not involved with the u.n. even though they did send support afterwards.
Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization.

Here goes... The UN's main goal is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but since the establishment of the UN there have been many wars. Why? They didn't have enough power sometimes, and others they just chickened out, so to speak. Rwanda. Thousands of people were being killed and the UN troops were pulling out. That seems like a major failure to me. It's even been said that the UN had reliable evidence that the genocide was about to occur. Upwards of 800,000 thousand people died, and the UN had information that would help prevent it three months prior. "What happened in Rwanda was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. It had been under preparation for months, preparations made in the presence of two-and-a-half-thousand UN peacekeepers. UN troops had informants from within the Interhamwe who were telling them about the plans. This information was being sent to UN headquarters in New York." "…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…" If you can't save them how can you save the successing generation? "…armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,…". Was it not in the common interest of 800,000 people that some force was used to save their lives. "…to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security…" Again, I believe they failed. http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.ameasuredresponse.com... Also they failed to prevent America and Russia from doing what they wanted to do, which resulted in the Cold War and the Vietnamese War.
Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization.

Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization (I got hit pretty hard in one of my other debates for not defining P.E.T.A., so now I define any word that needs defining) Definitions: United Nations-political organization established 1945; headquarters in New York City in E central Manhattan overlooking East River Bad- inadequate or unsuited to a purpose Organization- an administrative and functional structure 1st pt: They solve the minor problems that would cause countries trouble The international court of Justice, a division of the U.N., hears many different international problems. They have delt with people who commit war crimes, try to start ethnic cleansings, and though it sounds like they don't have much to do, they actually are still trying people in the court. While this sounds like not very much, it gets rid of the problems associated with trying people internationally. While country A may feel that it is better because they were the victim country to try the criminal, country B may feel that it is their responsibility because they are the country of origin, and country C may want to try them so they can have a say in the matter. They also set international trade laws, etc. so that the countries don't need to waste time, or waste money dealing with small issues. 2nd pt: the u.n. works with the small amounts it is given To start off, the entire peace keeping mission only cost 1.3 billion (un.org), to compare this , the entire u.n. budget is only 0.5% of the entire united states military budget. The Tokyo fire department receives one billion more dollars than the u.n. does, it is only 4% of New York City's budget, even New York State University receives 3.7 billion more than the u.n. does. For workers doing these peacekeeping missions, there are only 52,280 people working these missions. Compare that to the over 150,000 people working at McDonalds, or the 50,000 people working at the 5 Disney parks around the world. With this small amount of people and money, the united nations continue to help out countries solve international issues, help out natural disasters, etc. For every eight missions the united nations have, they successfully solve seven, compared with the eight missions the U.S. may deal with, but only solve 4. 3rd pt: united nations has done a lot. We all know about the few and far between missions where the united nations hasn't acted, but what about all of the missions they have successfully done? Eighty per cent of the work of the UN system is devoted to helping developing countries build the capacity to help themselves. This includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights; saving children from starvation and disease; providing relief assistance to refugees and disaster victims; countering global crime, drugs and disease; and assisting countries devastated by war and the long-term threat of land-mines. The Human-Security Report that lets us know how the un is doing states: 40% drop in conflict, 80% drop in deadly conflicts, and a further 80% drop in genocide and policide.
twisted response

This debate is meant to be just for fun. This is a fun improv game that we played in my drama class. The goal is to think of as many double meanings, innuendos, puns, etc, as you can about the statement the previous person leaves behind. For Example: If my statement were "I went to the beach", the other person could say something like, "You left without me, you shellfish son of a beach!" or, "My clothes were dirty from the sand so I had to wash them with tide". The winner should be determined by who left the most creative or interesting remarks throughout the 'debate'. Your only allowed to answer once, then leave a statement for the opponent to twist. Let's try to make this debate fun! Thus, no stupid statements that make it hard for the instigator to twist. With that said I'll begin. "We just went on a school field trip to a pencil factory."
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

Granted, NASA is an extremely important program for the United States, but $17.3 Billion? That's downright outrageous. Much could be done with that money, and I don't believe it's justified to spend that much money on NASA when there are more problems to take care of here, rather then on the moon. Looking to some of my research, it will only take $2 Billion to fund meeting Millenium Development water sanitation goals in all of Sub Saharan Africa! Helping people on Mother Earth, or going to the moon? I think we need to take care of ourselves here and now.
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

It was nice debating with you as well. NASA funding is important. As I have mentioned NASA has provided not just the United States, but the world, with valuable research. Also the people of our country would not tolerate it if our country could not partake in the space races, both past and present. As for the money that I mentioned that could be reallocated, has not because no one has taken the initiative to reallocate it. The money is there, the want to do something isn't really there. Vote Neg. (Con)
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

In closing, I just want to say it was nice debating you! Now... Being the first may be nice and all, but the fact is, is that people have to push other things aside where other problems are in place. The fact is, there is other more pressing problems then the NASA funding. Giving up lives and allowing other problems to run rampant in the US and in the world and instead going off to Mars is not something that can or should be justified right now, with how much could be saved right now. You did say that you had those points, but however, there is no amount specifically allocated. You said 2.5 billion and something for the year. However, the approximate estimations weren't there for the rest of it. There obviously cannot be reallocation, otherwise there would be some funding being switched around. With that, it was fun. ^^
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

Being the first on Mars may be an "ego trip" However, the way that a lot of Americans think, they would say that have to be the first on Mars. By being the first on the Moon a certain bar was set. Americans expect us to be the first and the best at what we do. It is not necessarily the right way to think, but it is the way we think. You would have an extremely hard time changing the thoughts of a nation! Actually, I did mention where the rest of the $17.3 billion goes. "A lot of the budget goes to storing the shuttles between uses and preparing them to be launched." and "Also more money goes towards the space station, research, and exploration of space itself, than goes towards the Moon." These just show you where the remainder of the money goes. The fact that there is more appropriate funding which can be reallocated for Africa, means that it could just as easily be reallocated towards other problems. I am not bringing my beliefs into this debate, I am only bringing the facts. The facts are that we need the space program and all the money that is given to it. The space program brings forth important research about the human body, human species, life on other planets, and much more.
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

You talk about how Russia announced it would be the first to land a person on Mars, but what's the big deal about being the first? It's just an ego trip. Sure, it would be nice that the US would have the first person on Mars, but how beneficiary would it be to the rest of the world, especially since Russia will be there shortly after? There honestly wouldn't be a point. We explored the moon, but what did we honestly gain? Again, I agree that NASA is an important program, but this much funding is not justified. You just said $2.5 Billion this year, thre where is the rest of the $17.3 billion going? Also, you say that there is other places to get this funding for Africa. If there was, the action should have already occured. Also, that isn't the only problem. Many other problems exist, such as the universal health care problem as well. My belief is that we need to focus on our own problems at home on Earth before moving to outer space.
Funding for NASA is unreasonable

NASA is an extremely important program for the United States, especially since Russia announced they would be the first nation to land a human on Mars. As many know the current space shuttle fleet is being retired in 2010. Therefore, about $2.5 billion which is in the budget for this, this year is needed. In the long run the new shuttles will save taxpayers about $4 billion a year. A lot of the budget goes to storing the shuttles between uses and preparing them to be launched. Also more money goes towards the space station, research, and exploration of space itself, than goes towards the Moon. As for using $2 billion dollars to meet the MDG for water sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa, there are other portions of the fiscal budget that could be cut to come up with this money. Things that are irrelevant and are stuck in there so that the budget will actually be passed.
The Promised One

For these reasons I believe Satan is a person and not a symbolic representation of ego.(1) God punished Adam, Eve and the Serpent. How can the Serpent be punished if the Serpent is non existent? Genesis 3:14-15(2) "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." How can ego be tormented? And don't say that the 'devil' represents people that were corrupt, since it says that the devil was cast in the lake of fire and brimstone WITH the beast and false prophet.(3) Satan is told that 'he was perfect from the day he was created until iniquity was found in him' this clearly looks like it's adressing a person, not a non existent representative of bad things such as temptation, evil, deception... how can this representation be told that it was 'perfect' until iniquity was found in it? That is contradictory, because Satan by your very definition is a representation of that, while this verse talks of Satan as a perfect creature prior to his corruption.So, how do you solve these in your worldview? And how do you know that Satan is not a person, what is stopping you from accepting a literal reading? Why don't you read it literally?
The Promised One

Exactly! They are not the only signs! And more will be fullfield! NO OTHER BEING IN THIS UNIVERS HAS FULFILLED SO MUCH AS HE AS! It is not a couincidence, it is not by chance or luck. Yes, more will be fullfiled. It has only been bealry over 100 years.... thats NOTHING! I would love if you came with quotes and proof of this, because I am not denieng that. Am just stating that is it not a literal meaning. The Bible talks as satan as a person because it is easier to understand. Our way of thinking today compared to that time are like to different human races. So satan (ego) had to be displayed in a way people can understand. Just like the snake in the story in Adam and Eve! It symbolises temptation. If anyone believes that the story is real and the is such a thing as a talking snake, a forbidden fruit, to first human beings.... they are deceveing themselves. it is all symbolic for the purpose of understanding.
The Promised One

The signs you gave are not at all the only signs. We have a whole bunch of other signs that are one hundred percent literal. For example, the seven year treaty, the rebuilding of the Temple destroyed in 70 A.D. and more. This disagrees with other religions and not only that, the Bible talks of Satan as a person not your ego. The greatest trick Satan ever did was make people believe he does not exist, which is what you believe.
The Promised One

We Baha'is believe that this cannot be a literal meaning. Bahais believe in science aswell as religion. We believe that religion MUST be reasonable (which it is) Now, we also believe that there is no such thing as the "devil", we interpreet the devil as selfishness, ego, selfdesires... Service to ones own self. Now, when He shall do all these unbelieveable things (which I believe He is doing/will do) it will cause the utmost peace, love, detatchment of the people. Every time the disciples asked Jesus what these signs of The Promised One shall be, To this testifies the four Gospels- First Gospel according to Mathew, it is recorded: And when they asked Jesus concerning the signs of his coming, He said unto them: Immidatly after the oppresions (Thlipsis, has to meanings in greek, pressure and oppression) the sun shall be darkend, the moon shall not shed her light, and stars shall fall from the heaven. The powers of the earth shall be shakend: Then shall appear the signs of the Son of man in heaven: then shall all the tribes on earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming down in the clouds of heaven with great glory".. And similar statements are given by the three other gospels, Luke, Mark and John. Matthew 24:29-31 Because the Christians took this as a literal meaning they are actually expecting these things to happen..... Now The Promised One HAS come and they are ignoring it. Therfore we beilieve tthese things are all symbolical. And the symbols can be eaasily explaind furthermore.
The Promised One

I believe it was literal because it specifically says that He will reign on earth for a thousand years with Christians who were beheaded for his sake, throw the Devil into hell forever, make lions lie with lambs and do other quite unbelieveable things -- that is what the Bible seems to say, which would certainly change the world forever and turn it into a paradise.So, I somehow agree that the common goal of all religions is the good of mankind, but the approach is different and that makes the difference, if you do not take the right approach, you may never enter the paradise which is about to come, for example, the Quran says that if you're a Jew you're not going to paradise.
The Promised One

The teaching is not the same but the goal of religion is. The goal is betterment of mankind for its current maturity. Ofc, the religions did it differently because we are indeed different through out time. We think of it this way, with an analogy: God is like the doctor. Prophets/religion are like the medicin. And the patient is humanity. The doctor gives the patient the needed medicin for it condition at the current time. But when the patient get a new sickness, the medicin has to change (religion has to progress). But the goal nevertheless is to heal the patient. We believe the second coming of Christ IS the ultimate end of the world as we know it and the beginning of a new Era of Paradis. But this is in no way a litteral meaning. Indeed it is symbolical. Let me explain furthermore: Just as past scripture tells of a future Messenger"the Torah of a "Prophet like Moses" (Deuteronomy 18:18) and the New Testament of a coming "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), the Qur"an prophesies a future "meeting" with the Divine. By this, Baha"is believe, we must understand a new manifestation of God. Islam and Christianity are awaiting the Messiah, Buddhism is awaiting for the 10th Avatar, Judaism The Lord of Hosts. All religions are waiting for one who will Start a New Era of man, a new human way of thinking. So they dont state otherwise in exactly this arena. You probably have noticed the way all the Manifastiations/prophets speak of this Upcoming prophet (The promised one, the messiah), they all say He will fullfill their cause and how they will start a new breed of man. One whom will crush all known norms and change the way of thinking. We believe thats what it means by the end of the world... He (The promised one) will create such a world that is likend unto Paradise on earth. He shall eradicate this old destructive norms, superstithons and believes as we know it (end of the world). But not a literal meaning of the end of thee world. If you understand what am saying?
The Promised One

Religion coming from the same source is absolutly correct. But one cannot denie that the essence or core aswell as the goal of all religion is the same. The Only difference is how to reach that goal. We Bahais believe that as long as humanity progresses so must religion. So, yes differences are there in all religions, the jurney is different but the goal is thesame. Today ALL old religions have been curropted and is a product of perversion as you say. But all religion at its time, historicaly was like light in darkness. It was need for the people AT THAT TIME. Islam was actually very radical. Muhammad raisd the station of women. The muslims where one of the first founders of some areas of science (math, agriculture, etc). The sosciety laws today in most of the worlds part are based on the 10 basic comandments. These are historical facts that one can easily check. nevertheless, in all this the must be a purpose, a product/result. They have been prophets after prophets, progressing through out time. Again, every prophet comes around each 1000 years... give or take 3oo years. This is an observed fact. So now it lives us just one more premis: Islam is thefore NOT the last religion. Bahaullah has come. And a next prophet will come agter him in a 100 years.
The Promised One

"Islam in its highest mood means the recognition of the Divine Will and the surrender of every will to it in utter peace and resignation. It dissociated the thought of God from any image or symbol and disseminated the ideal of universal brotherhood. Buddhism stresses righteousness and Christianity stresses love. Hinduism emphasizes the divine unity of all things and shows the central unity in all diversity, the prismatic colors heightening the charm of their united glory in the white light of Brahman. (Biographies, Martha Root, Herald of the Kingdom, p. 261) I am a Bahai and believe in all religions are the same and from the One and Only God. The only difference is that we believe religion must progress in order to keep it in its purest form. As long as humanity progresses, so must religion. Thefore we believe in science as much as religion. The Bahaifait is an indipendent religion with the founder Baha'ullah in 1844. We believe he is the Promised one. The promised one: Just as past scripture tells of a future Messenger"the Torah of a "Prophet like Moses" (Deuteronomy 18:18) and the New Testament of a coming "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), the Qur"an prophesies a future "meeting" with the Divine. By this, Baha"is believe, we must understand a new manifestation of God. So the debate will be if he is actually The Promised one. For many christians and Muslims believe that The Messiah has not arrived yet due to wronge interpretations of Holy writings, even tho Baha'ullah has fullfiled all the prophecies.