BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Man-Made Global warming is a Hoax

My opponent claims that there is no evidence linking increased CO2 in the atmosphere to an enhanced greenhouse effect. However, there is indeed. CO2 indeed does absorb infrared light. This isn't just something someone made up. We know, from lab tests and what not, exactly what wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation CO2 absorbs. http://en.wikipedia.org... Located near the bottom of the picture there is a "CO2" row. You'll notice that most of the absorbtion of CO2 is in the infrared spectrum, with peaks in major portions of the upgoing thermal radiation. However, at these peaks, all the radiation is already absorbed, so adding more CO2 is negligible here. However, you'll notice that at some points where the CO2 graph is non-zero and somewhat small, a great portion of those wavelengths are not absorbed by the atmosphere yet. These areas are key for heat escaping our planet - and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the absorbtion at these levels. The data for the graph is from LINEPAK, which uses ray-tracing and some other mathematically-accurate stuff. Here's a page about it. http://www.gats-inc.com... My opponent claims tat we have not found any evidence that CO2 causes global warming. However, I just now fulfilled that: LINEPAK's algorithm's don't just randomly decide how much a given molecule absorbs of each wavelength, it uses actual science and computational power to arrive at an answer. Even so, "You don't have any evidence to back your claims" is a very weak argument when you provide no evidence for your own arguments. My opponent has given us zero evidence that CO2 does not have a causal relationship with an increased greenhouse effect and therefore increased global average temperature. Lastly, I will respond to the Al Gore reference. Al Gore supposedly said that we were past the point of no return as far as CO2 emmissions are concerned (though I saw no source listed for this, so by my opponent's logic, I should just ignore this point, though I won't). My opponent concludes from this that CO2 emmissions must therefore have zero effect on global warming. Consider the following: There is a train, 5 miles from a dead-end on the track (we'll say it's at a cliff, to make it exciting). This train is going very fast. It would probably be wise at some point soon for this train to use the brakes. However, if it puts off using its brakes for long enough, it will reach the point of no return, where even braking as hard as possible, it will still go over that bridge. That is what Gore was implying - that we are a runaway train, too close to the bridge for our brakes to really matter - all we'll be doing is delaying the inevitable. However, I myself disagree with Gore. His conclusion here is likely based on hasty assumptions. Still, even if he was correct, this does not show that CO2 emmissions have no effect on global warming.
Man-Made Global warming is a Hoax

My opponent stated this: We create a lot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared. It's a known fact that the greenhouse effect contributes greatly to the surface temperature of the earth. Basically, the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun and from the earth, and it radiates some of this heat outward. Much of this heat from the atmosphere reaches the earth again, heating the earth further. By increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, we increase the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the earth (energy that would otherwise be sent out into space), which increases the amount of radiation the atmosphere emits, which increases the average global surface temperature of the earth. My Response: My opponent Obviously forgot to cite his sources therefor i must see his case as an opinion without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back himself up. I will argue as if he cited his sources and they were deemed true. He says that we create alot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared, yes this is true but The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...) My opponent was almost correct in saying it isn't a hoax, but not quite. I agree however, it is more like a religion. Many people have put it in front of far more important issues such as national security, education, abortion and many more. If we were to reduce our emissions Al Gore has even stated it would have no effect. He claims it is too late. But if this is the case it makes me reverse the statement. In saying that reducing emissions isn't going to do anything, doesn't that mean that Emissions are not a variable? Its as simple as math, 1 + 1 + 0 = 2 take out the 0 and nothing changes, add in a zero and guess what... nothing changes.
Man-Made Global warming is a Hoax

I'll now define man-made global warming: An increase in global average temperatures caused by certain human activity. To win this debate, I simply have to show that man has at least some positive effect on the average global surface temperatures. 1. We create a lot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared. It's a known fact that the greenhouse effect contributes greatly to the surface temperature of the earth. Basically, the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun and from the earth, and it radiates some of this heat outward. Much of this heat from the atmosphere reaches the earth again, heating the earth further. By increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, we increase the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the earth (energy that would otherwise be sent out into space), which increases the amount of radiation the atmosphere emits, which increases the average global surface temperature of the earth. Now, I will show that human activity does indeed increase the concentrations of key greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, and H20. CO2 increases have had the largest impact. The very fact that we are animals means we give off CO2 (from respiration). We burn fossil fuels that would otherwise not be burned. A byproduct of this combustion is CO2. We also destroy more plant life than we create (most notably, for contruction of buildings). Perhaps the entirety of the increasing CO2 trend is not to be blamed on humans. However, it is undeniable that at least some of the increased CO2 is due to humans. Increasing CO2 levels, as well as increasing levels of other greenhouse gases like CH4 and atmospheric H20, leads to a more powerful greenhouse effect. A more powerful greenhouse effect leads to higher global average temperatures. Yes, the entirety of the current warming trend may not be the fault of humans. However, humans DO have a global warming effect. Other natural sources have global warming effects too right now, but that does not change the fact that Man has indeed made some amount of global warming. Therefore, it is false that man-made global warming is a hoax. Even the claim that umans are the ONLY source of global warming trends is not a hoax, it is more likely simply wrong. A hoax is something that is said or done to INTENTIONALLY trick people. Those who claim that humans are the only source of global warming trends are simply ignorant of the facts, they are not intentionally attempting to trick people. To show even this, my opponent would have to provide a motive. However, that is assuming that "Man-Made Global warming" refers only to the belief that the global warming trend is wholly the fault of humanity. However, I have shown that this need not be the case. Man-made global warming does exist, it's just not the only contributor to the overall global warming trend.
Man-Made Global warming is a Hoax

{thank you for voting} The earth is warming up... DUH! but why is the earth warming? my goal in this debate it to fight off the common theory that we are the couse of Global Warming. Global warming is a corner stone issue with many news media programs, as well as a corner stone issue for the democratic party. I had the privilege of talking to a scientist who testified as well as 6 others in front of congress. He says, and i quote "The largest production of Carbon Dioxide in the world isn't even close to use, its in the ocean, its plankton." He also told me that we have very little if any effect on the worlds climate. he says that the second largest production comes from south America in the rain forest (in which he spent 10 years in studying). He says that the trees in the rain forest store carbon dioxide for hard times when they need energy, when the hard times don't come and the tree is fully grown they let out the carbon dioxide. My first statement is that we have little effect on our environment.
Man-Made Global warming is a Hoax

My opponent has done his best to confuse the readers, and now I must remedy the situation. Indeed, there are many other factors, besides the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that determine temperatures. My opponent lists clouds, etc. However, he has NOT shown that humans have had any cooling effect on the environment through any of these other factors, therefore it is useless to talk about them. He has also claimed that the amount of CO2 we put into the atmospere is not enough to have ANY effect on global average temperatures. This is blatantly false. CO2 has aborbsion bands in areas where radiation is not yet fully absorbed by the atmosphere - this means that as far as the greenhouse effect alone is concerned, increasing the global average CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount will indeed lead to an increase in temperatures. This is because it makes the greenhouse effect, one of the key warmers of our planet, more powerful. We put enough CO2 into the atmosphere that it does increase global average CO2 concentrations. Let us go through what has been shown. 1. Humans increase the global average concentration of CO2. 2. An increase in average global CO2 leads to an increase in the intensity of the greenhouse effect. 3. An increasingly intense greenhouse effect raises global average temperatures. 4. VIA 1,2, and 3, humans raise global average temperatures. 5. My opponent has failed to show any way in which we lower global average temperatures, so the effect should be consiered a net positive. 6. There is some portion of global warming, the increasing trend in global average temperatures, that can be attributed to humans. This portion is called man-made global warming. 7. Since man-made global warming is real, it is not a hoax. Also, I think we could all care less for my opponent's newspaper copypasta. If you've got a point to make, make it and cite a source if you need to, don't just copy and paste a ten page article.
THBT feminism has failed

Thank you for your point. "when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn't change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!" Sorry, but this is all wrong. First of all, as I stated before, feminists aren't looking for equality of outcome. As I stated, equality is about opportunity and treatment. You have no basis to prove that mostly we would chose women. There are 317,000,000 people living in America[1]. And only 5,100,000 are stay-at-home mothers[2]. Where is the inequality? Yes, there are 176,000 stay-at-home dads[3], but that is for one important reason. Tradition. Traditionally, it was the common belief that a women should stay at home. It was viewed as a good belief, the right belief and had very little negative connotations, after all, the bible, which has been predominant in setting traditions on multiple occasions, talks about the duties of a wife. See here: http://www.openbible.info... So if we establish that it was a common view, and only, as I take your word for it, up until fourty years ago, then this tradition would be very hard to break down. But hasn't it already? Remember, feminism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, because that doesn't include those who still agree with the tradition or those who want to be a housewife/househusband. So equal opportunity is what we're looking for. To break the tradition that a wife should stay at home, there has to be an equal chance for women to go out and get jobs themselves, and for that information, please refer to my previous post. There is an equal, or at least more equal opportunity for women to get jobs, so this belief that a women's role is in the kitchen has deteriorated. The outcome? Well it is for sure decreasing. In the 1940s, only 28% of ladies worked[4]. My figure for today has proved that something has changed and helped change this, to bring it back down, and that is partly due to feminism. A success. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.infoplease.com... [3] http://www.infoplease.com... [4] The 1950s, by William H. Young
THBT feminism has failed

when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn’t change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!
THBT feminism has failed

"Let me start off by asking a question: How many CEOs of companies or high-level offficals of governments are women? Precious little are. This is common sense that women in power are much more less than men in power, which in turn proves that the role of women is not as powerful as men in the society. The purpose of feminism was to put women on a par with men. However, feminism did not even get close to it's purpose, for there is still lots of gender inequality in this world today. Thus this motion must fall." First if all, the purpose of feminism is not to put women on par with men. This is not true. Feminism is simply about equality of opportunity and treatment. The right to be treated as equals, and the right to have the same opportunity. You are right that a minute amount of women are in positions of power, the figure is estimated at 20%, but don't jump to conclusions, this does not mean that there is inequality. 73% of the people in medical and healthcare related jobs are women. Does that mean there is male sexism within that field? A survey conducted shows 76% of public school teachers were female. So is there inequality there? Is that what it proves? Because it is ignorant to think true equality means everything is 50:50. The floor will agree that if 15.7% of people in the American Army are women, it doesn't mean sexism. After all, that would imply that exactly the same amount or a majority of women actually applied and were turned down. If there were more men applying, of course more men will be in the army. Of course men, who have a better suited anatomy for the work of the army will be admitted. You are focusing on the wrong side of things, feminists don't truly want equality of outcome, because there are still a high amount people who don't want positions of power, there are still ladies against the idea of feminism, there is a whole website (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com...) about it, but what is truly equality is equal opportunity. And that is ever-present. A 2006 census showed that 60% of people in university were women. If that isn't equal opportunity, I don't know what counts. This article sums it up - http://news.bbc.co.uk.... An example of how the feminist ideology is helping and has helped create the fact that a woman can go to university on the same grounds as men. That is not a failure, that is a success for feminism. http://www.businessweek.com... http://www.feminismisequality.com... http://nces.ed.gov... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.army.mil... http://news.bbc.co.uk...
THBT feminism has failed

Let me start off by asking a question: How many CEOs of companies or high-level offficals of governments are women? Precious little are. This is common sense that women in power are much more less than men in power, which in turn proves that the role of women is not as powerful as men in the society. The purpose of feminism was to put women on a par with men. However, feminism did not even get close to it's purpose, for there is still lots of gender inequality in this world today. Thus this motion must fall.
THBT feminism has failed

Thank you for your point. Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs born in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. We see that it is unfair for women because they have to work twice as hard as men to achieve a professional status in the society. We believe that we should reap according to what we have sown and it should be the same for everyone, no matter who they are. Some may say that we are too idealistic, but we hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take.
THBT feminism has failed

Feminism - "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the equality of the sexes." - Oxford Dictionary Seeing as you did not define what you meant by failure, I can only presume you mean that feminists did not achieve their goals in building equal rights. You stated 'feminism has failed', so I can only assume you mean ALL feminism, so if I find one major example against your point, then your argument is invalid...So let us take this back to 20th century with the Suffragettes. Suffragettes were female supporters of equal rights, particularly in the right to vote. In 1832, in Britain, the Great Reform act was passed and gave people the right to vote, but this left out women. In 1867, the National Union of Women's Suffrage was born, and in 1903 the Women's Social and Political Union had also arrived. At first, aiming for equal rights, they started of peacefully, protests were common, meeting, and the usual, but two years later, their radical movements started. They started burning down churches, chaining themselves to railings, five years later they were smashing windows and causing a stir in the lives of the public. They were sent to prison, continued hunger strikes and the famous Cat and Mouse Acts were passed against then. However come WW1 in 1914, suffragettes and women volunteered happily and women formed 1,600,000 of the force behind factories, healthcare and communications, and all this time the suffragettes were using this to help their campaign. In 1918, women over thirty gained the vote. 1928, all women gained the vote on the same terms as men. You stated: 'Feminism failed because it only helped leading women who were at the top of the society, but did not help middle-class women. Also, women's rights advocates did not help the root of the problem which is the problem stated above. they campaigned on mag covers, song lyrics and many more, but they still did not solve the root of the problem. Thus, feminism is a failure.' So feminism has not only helped the top of society, as everyone on the same terms as men received the vote, they had solved the exact root of the problem they were facing, and because of the lack of detail, you implied that there were no anomalies and this was true for all cases. Well not here, thus I have won this round. Still skeptic and need any more examples? Check out the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which has shaped many middle eastern countries, anything to do with second wave feminism, especially during the 1960's, and feminists today have shaped the equality you see today, which is very evident in the war on the objectification of women, which counts as a goal. They haven't completely won the whole war on everything, but the point of feminism is about forming equal rights, so every step towards it takes and succeeds is a victory. I am not a feminist, but don't turn a blind eye to what they've done. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.firstworldwar.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Monster Rap

I'll take my point hits -- I can't record this verse kids,My computer is being a biitch, so here it is in script: Other biitches mighta quit it, too scared to see me win itReconsidering ever letting spit escape their lipsYellow bastids, my quips are vicious, monster gripUndulate as you’re killed softly by my incredible witStill you stand there, and it’s just not fair, an unmoving targetGrinning as I aim at this pigeon’s gullet, right through your mulletEngage and pull it, you were done before the first verse postedToasted like Subway getting back at Quiznos, case closedSlayed slow, popped your bubble like the underdog at a staged showKiller flow, teeth like bullets, tongue so energized, it may glowIller than pandemics, man, so after this, you may way to lay lowLying if you think you can match this with your gay flowLack skills, you lack punches, in fact, your hair looks weed wackedEat that, and when you get back, put on some blush and wear a hatDeceased as this verse is released by the undefeated daddy mack
Monster Rap

http://www.youtube.com... Beat courtesy of Cypress Hill. ^_^ You're like smug Bugs Bunny, honey, uttering dishonestly some falsities regarding your supremacy in all of these battles. Baby babble. Crazy blabber. I'll leave you wanting more of me, so respect my authority as I correct your poor ditty. Here's the list so listen up. One. You need to recognize that I am the top notch. Two. You need to realize that you are crotch rot. Three. Proofread because the first draft had lots botched. Four, five, six, and seven Require more time spent on gettin closer to the toon I'm levelin called Oryus: cruel Paladin. Droppin DPS on a mage, PDQ. Concocting catalysts for nerd rage- speedy too. Don't try to Conjure Refreshments. I won't revive you with Redemption. Go put on your armored vestments for your placement on the pavements coming sudden from my statements. You're not a great man. You just demonstrate that when a King dies, a Queen flies. Just call me Elizabeth. I'll receive my high and mighty prize and you'll just have to live with it. Four more morsels for you Ren- pay attention I finish your position as the DDO rap champion. I dish it out old school like our dear vice prez innomen. I'm mixin up my flow like Freedos Big Ish opinions. So start fixing up your scripts because this bitch is winnin.
Monster Rap

http://www.youtube.com...Just, just, give me a minute to spit my immaculate rapsFantastic, just attacking, mack the beat, shiit, never slackingKill half the drink, lips smacking, bass slapping, hats clappingCut the crap and, release a poetic track, opponent fall backBefore your eyes, it’s Ren, the illest cat to fall on a trackAnd, oh my, it’s Oryus, yes, your style might be fire, sisBut I’m enough water to cause you to need dialysisSo, get some Depends before you soak your baggy pants with piissHave your atheist asss screaming for Jesus ChristmasAppear at mass with a list of wishes, the least of which isSilence Ren before this shiit really gets viciousWith ridiculous rhythmics so thick with genius it’s viscousBefore this battle is though, you’ll be spitting blood mixed with mucousTwo punches, you’re through, puke once your gut meet my fistsesYou’re a lightweight, even gravity won’t fvck with biitchesAnd the lacerations I give won’t even close up with stitchesSo, your next hit better be better than the Hitler of WitchesOr your quick death will get me too much attention from snitches