BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Power

Sorry for the incoherent nature of the opening statement i should have defined it as a look at large scale nuclear power station, as my primary example of nuclear power. In response to the first point you have produced nuclear power and the bi-products of the process as one and the same and the use of word i would reinforce my point as that the lack of nuclear power being developed as a primary source of energy, has allowed the production of energy from fossil fuels has caused more pollution, Carbon and sulfur emissions from fossil fuels causing acid rain, and the absorption of Carbon dioxide into water cause changes in pH damaging ecosystems. Whereas the only radioactive waste products from nuclear fission based reactor technology has had a relatively small impact globally. I would also state the define that by stating in your response that nuclear technology is an abstract idea seem to be come confusion for you for as far as I'm aware nuclear technology is and has been a reality for over 60 years now, and hence it is no longer an idea. I argue that the power which can be produced from a nuclear reactor is worth producing the radioactive waste. In response to your second point If you can reference a majority of points which show global damage done by these accidents at nuclear reactors, then i will cede my point. However, as the only major incidents in history of nuclear power are Chernobyl and Green Mile Island, in these incidents radioactive materials were dispersed into the atmosphere, however asides from in the locality of the incidents no long term damage has been proven. I will aslo like to preempt that the incidents with nuclear reactors in Japan can not be contributed to flaws in the nuclear technology but due to extreme damage caused by a random act of God. I would also hasten to point out that the amount of incidents that involve in death of work or costs over $540000 dollars is not confined to the nuclear industry but is common place in oil industries, i need only quote the deep water horizon incident in which lives of works were lost, and the cost of clean-up into billions of dollars, likewise the damage to the ecosystem is severe. And finally in response to your third point i would argue that in order for you to win on this point you would have to present a feasible technology that could produce power of the same magnitude as that produce by nuclear reactor technology. As such wind power and most renewable sources cannot produce energy on large scales, which would sensibly be defined as over 25% of a countries energy consumption.
The battle of the Bulge was the most important battle of WW2

Yes, but in Stalingrad did not hurt as much. The Germans might have lost 850,000, but the Soviets lost over 1million soldiers. Plus a good deal of the German soldiers lost were Italian, Romanians, Hungarians, and Croatians. The German allies totaled around 640,000 men out of an total of 1,040,000. At Stalingrad there were 8 armies and just 3 of them were German. In the Bulge all units were from the German armies.
The battle of the Bulge was the most important battle of WW2

Except for the fact that the offensive Germany launched during the battle had no hope of succeeding. Germany simply lacked the fuel to power its armored columns.[1] "Could the Germans have won the battle? Almost certainly not, as they had one huge problem " their inability to keep their armoured columns supplied with fuel. Any form of armoured attack needed a constant supply of fuel " and Allied bombing of fuel plants in Germany meant that such supplies did not exist. Field Marshall von Rundstedt believed all along that the plan was too ambitious. When on trial after the war, von Rundstedt said that "all, absolutely all, conditions for the possible success of such an offensive were lacking." His views were shared by General von Mellenthin:" [1] "The Ardennes battle drives home the lesson that a large-scale offensive by massed armour has no hope of success against an enemy who enjoys supreme command of the air. Our precious reserves had been expended, and nothing was available to ward off the impending catastrophe in the east." [1] Also, the battle of Stalingrad was much more important because the axis suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties. At the battle of the Bulge Germany suffered less than 200,000 casualties. Stalingrad was also the turning point of the war.[2] I really don't believe my opponent has any chances of winning this debate. Sources: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should football players have to wear more protective gear

In response to the degree to which this debate is hypothetical, you are taking it too far. You are saying that we can not give football players more pads without compromising the game of football. I'm telling you that giving football players more padding doesn't mean that we are eventually going to wrap them in bubble wrap and modify the rules. Do you have any evidence that more padding would restrict players that much? The technology of the padding that we currently have is very light and slim enough that it doesn't restrict the players too much... so if we put money and research into it, I'm sure they could be made even better without hindering the players' performance. I am also aware that sometimes helmets do not stop concussions... that is why I'm proposing we create safer, better padded helmets so they CAN always prevent injury. We are working towards the goal of keeping people safe. I recognize the problem that the helmets are not perfect, so why not make them better? Yes. Players go into football games knowing that they could get hurt. Even though they know it's a possibility, that doesn't mean they WANT to get injured. They signed up for the job and that they know the risk, but are you saying that means that we shouldn't make it safer for them? They love their jobs and all, but I'm sure if you approached a quarterback or a wide receiver or any other player in the NFL and said to him, "Hey. We want to make the game of football safer for you. Would you be okay with that?" that he would say "I would love that." I never suggested that the players wear bullet proof vests. The theoretical probability of a football player getting shot during a game is infinitesimally small, whereas you can hardly watch one football game where a player doesn't get injured. So yes, I don't want them to get hurt... but I would never suggest bullet proof vests.
Should football players have to wear more protective gear

First off like you said I was trying to say that hypothetically. And second off wearing more pads would restircted you. Also for example their have been claims that helmets haven't stopped some concussion. Also i see what you mean by they are humans but they signed up for this job so they know that it is a risk. And frankly would you really want to see a man walking around in bulletproof vest because didn't you know they could get shot while that they are playing. I mean you did say that you don't want them to get hurt
Should football players have to wear more protective gear

First off, I'd like to say that it is a ridiculous statement for you to say "what's next? Wearing bubble rap and no touching?" What you're basically saying is that adding a few more pads at this time will ultimately lead the end of the integrity of football. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com.... You are shifting the focus off of the claim at hand, (football players shouldn't wear more pads,) and going into hypothetical situations. Focus solely on adding a few more pads, not bubble wrap. You have to remember that because football is a contact sport and very dangerous, pads are very important. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that many football players, after retiring, suffer lots of brain damage and their lives are impacted a ton. 5 of the players on the chiefs even sued because of the brain injuries they sustained. This is an article explaining that. "http://www.nytimes.com...; Because of this, I believe it is important to keep our football players safe. The only way that we could do this (by your logic, because you said you don't want to modify the rules of the game ("What's next? Wearing bubble rap and no touching?")) is by adding more padding. It would in no way hinder the players' playing, and it would keep everyone safer. Games would run more smoothly on account of not having to stop as much for injuries, teams wouldn't lose their star players because of silly injuries, and players would get the playing time in the sport that they love. Once again, I remind you that the players on the field ARE people. By not giving them more padding, be it in their helmets or elsewhere, they are paying the price.
RESOLVED: organized political lobbying does more harm than good

Since my opponent has forfeited this final round, I must insist on a vote in affirmation based on his failure to refute any of my points. Political lobbying is detrimental to public interest because it prevents our legislators from acting in the best interest of the country. Political lobbyists also have far too much power, which they can easily abuse to get their own way. Lastly, organized political lobbying takes away power from ordinary citizens.
RESOLVED: organized political lobbying does more harm than good

It is fine; I'm not a big hockey fan, although the fighting interests me. Thank you for accepting this debate. How is lobbying Detrimental to the public interest when it is the public that hires these lobbyists? I believe it was my first contention that addressed this. They have too much power, well all I can say is take that up with the government, I assume you will talk about how they use that power, in order for me to attack this, I need more info. Political lobbying has negative impacts on the protected rights of the American citizens; well lobbyists have rights to, lobbying falls under that always-talked-about amendment called the freedom of speech. Finally your last point was that lobbying has a negative impact on the protected rights of American Citizens. How does it when lobbying gives them a say and furthers our democratic system? Of course I cannot attack this effectively until more is posted. It is because of these reasons I stand CON.
RESOLVED: organized political lobbying does more harm than good

Not only is political lobbying a highly profiled debate in current events these days, it was also the Public Forum debate topic for February. Since my team's February tournament is our favorite, this topic is near and dear to my heart. Unfortunately, I just got home from watching the Predators get owned by the Blackhawks in hockey and I have exactly a minute and forty-four seconds to write this. I don't want to forfeit this round or this debate, so I will have to post greater detail and refute my opponents contentions in Round 2. I apologize for this inconvenience and irresponsibility on my part! However, my contentions will stand as follows: 1. Political lobbying is detrimenal to public interest. 2. Political lobbyists have too much power. 3. Political lobbying has negative impacts on the protected rights of American citizens. I look forward to some real debate in the next round. :)
RESOLVED: organized political lobbying does more harm than good

According to Webster's new world dictionary, a lobbyist is just someone who tries to influence someone to take one position over another on a particular issue. It is easy only to point out the things we don't like about lobbyists; like when they support laws that we're against. But we must look at all the good things they do as well; they give us all in voice in politics and make it easier to be informed on the issues. Therefore we stand con. Resolved: In the United States organized political lobbying does more harm than good. Contention 1: lobbyist promote community interest A decade ago Union Station in Kansas City was falling apart. The city proposed replacing it with a casino. A local Hallmark branch, not wanting to be located next to a gambling outlet, lobbied against this proposal. Union station and the surrounding area have now been renovated into museums and attractions that bring in thousands of dollars for the city. Lobbyists are not exclusively hired by corporations. In the evidence presented the corporation was hallmark but any organization can hire a lobbyist; a church, a community center, and a club can all hire lobbyists to make their interests known to their representative. There are lobbyists for virtually everything and this is all very good because all of these lobbyists are making sure that these bills and laws are written correctly and fit the needs of our ever growing economy. Contention 2: lobbyists are necessary for a representative government to function. Legal analysts Lanny Davis writes that Without lobbyists, gov't cannot function efficiently and perhaps not all going all the way back to George Washington. Lobbyists spent much of that with members of Congress providing factual and expert Information about legislation that affects their clients. Their clients are companies that employ people, real people, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people, who deserve to be considered when laws are made. Lobbyists are necessary because they provide information. According to the center for responsive politics an average state congressmen votes on 200 bills a year. The only way to provide the information necessary is for lobbyist to organize and present research to their representatives. Because of these lobbyists our Congress and are better informed on those 200 bills passed each year. Contention 3: lobbyists give people a say in our government. again from legal analysts lanny Davis... Their clients are companies that employ people, real people, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people, who deserve to be considered when laws are made. Our government has become so inflated that the little man gets no voice. A lobbyists is the bridge between the small person and the government. These people are going to get a say as a company, and lobbyists will promote the welfare of the company, doing more good than harm. In conclusion, because lobbyists promote community interests, they are ness. for a government to function and they give people a say, I vote Con.
Gun Rigths

I know this is my last round of this whole debate, so I will try to prove my point to the best I can. Oh, and one more thing. As silly as this sounds, when Pro created this debate, he spelled 'Rights' wrong in the title. Just felt the need to point that out.- As Pro states, the shootings that occurred recently ARE due to one's right of a firearm. Most of those people who went on a shooting rampage were, to some extent, mentally ill. And for that reason the United States Government should put bans on SOME guns.- While I understand the in the second Amendment guarantees citizens access to weapons, times have changed since then. It was originally adopted in 1791, right after the Revolutionary War we had fought with Britain. Now, the government is strong enough to protect us by itself along with the police force and more (Navy, FBI, CIA etc.).- As for the movie theater shooting, that was a legally owned gun. But as you said yourself, Angelcoba, the guns legally belonged to his mother. Not him, but his mother. In other words, he 'stole' the gun from his mom and went to the school. Do you not have any regard or respect for the 20 young children who died?- I did not at all say that the government should completely prohibit guns for citizens. I said that the government should restrict certain guns. Who needs a AK-47 laying around in their house? Just last year, a three year old child accidentally shot and killed his young brother, who by the way, wasn't even one! Such a tragic story.- If the government lets mentally ill persons possess guns, then we are not living in a very safe environment. They cannot think straight for themselves sometimes. And if someone angers, them? God only knows what happens next.- School is a happy place where kids can learn. No one should be afraid to go to school because they are afraid someone will come in with a gun.Bearing this in mind, Judge/Viewer, I urge you to vote Con!Thank You.
Gun Rigths

- The shootings that occurred in the past are due to one's right of a firearm. Reasons to why those people had access to a firearm is because they can. As I stated earlier in round one the second amendment says, " Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a FREE people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government. " Note- In the second amendment the capitalize word "FREE" clearly explains why they/anyone can have access to a firearm despite what happens. Man should not be denied or be examined to claim a weapon. Weapons of any kind. - Indeed the man killed those innocent kids/adults may they rest in peace. But little does everyone know the gun that the man carried on the day of the shooting was a secure and legally-owned, belonging to his mother. Now I will present to you a link with a chart of those with crimes of a legal and, illegal firearms. . http://extranosalley.com... And a quick valid statistic of . .. six percent of guns taken from arrestees that could properly be considered possible "crime guns" that could also have been legally purchased. If it's not clear 6% is a very low number. - For the Chris Dorner manhunt summary you have given us, it's the past and was no longer a top story after several months of the incident. Once a new story comes out, everyone feels the need to bring justice. Moving forward from that statement if there were to be bans on guns through out the United States, increase in home invasions, increase in muggings, increase in car jacks, increase in more violent crimes period will occur. Think about it. Also if guns were to be banned the government would just be taking our rights away, our human rights. With that being said Americans would be weak and weak as a nation. "James Madison" father of the Constitution said in Federalists No.46, that the fact that Americans are armed, is an advantage that America has over every other nation. Our founding fathers were very careful to peace together sentences in such manner that won't create conflicts for our time of living and for the future generations to come. - The reason citizens are allowed to have ownership of a weapon is because it's stated in the constitution. And very much has great support from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. The mentally ill are indeed granted to have ownership of a firearm. In 2008 the supreme court ruled an individual rights of a firearm is very well protected by the court. The word individual is one word meaning ALL, from the mentally ill and to the people that aren't mentally ill. Thank you
Gun Rigths

First I will state my case, then I will move on the his.Okay, today I am here to prove to you all that there SHOULD be bans and restrictions on guns. I am sure that all of you read and watch the news and this should be nothing new.- First of all, there have been several shooting lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns.- Let's take Sandy Hooks Elementary School into account. On that morning, after the children reached school, some random man walks into his former school and goes on one of the second deadliest school shooting in US history. He shot and killed 20 innocent children and 6 adults. Why? there was no reason whatsoever and we will never get it. Think about it, they were 5 and 6 years old. What did they do to the shooter or anybody else? NOTHING, nada, zilch.- Okay, next example. I'm sure you guys know of the Chris Dorner manhunt. What did he do? he shot a woman and her fiance. then his former leader. This is quite serious. With a fomer navy and police member on a killing spree, we are not safe. This is exactly why there should definitely be bans on guns through out the US.- Go think back a little to the movie shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Several shots were fired. A 6 six year old through a 50-some year old died. SO many people died that day. Remember, that guy was a little mentally ill. He just went in, out, in and shot. I'm not even sure he KNEW what he was doing.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On to your case:- Okay, the government does say that we are allowed to have guns and they aren't allowed to infringe upon these rights. But there have been a recent turn of events involving guns. A couple of which are stated above. Why do citizens need guns? If only the military and government officials have them. Then the citizens are safe from each other. Resulting in no need of guns (except for the government officials and army etc). - What about the mentally ill persons? What happens if they happen to get their hands on severe weapons? What will the citizens do then?Pro: I would like to see how you justify this as "right" because in no way, shape, or form is this right. The ball is now in your court. Enjoy!
Gun Rigths

Americans should not be restricted or be limited to any gun of their choice by government. - The ownership of a gun is not the problem to why inhabitants kill one another. Any thing is considered a weapon such as a knife, hard objects, weights, etc.. If guns were not made what would the people put the blame on? Anything that can be consider a weapon or in this case the object that does the most killing. - What the Second Amendment says... " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In this amendment it implies the acceptance of weapons of any sort to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed. By allowing local and state restrictions violates the last words of the constitution, "shall not be infringed." This is not the American way of following law nor it's not the way our founding fathers would handle the situation if they were to be here, today.
Is it OK to be Gay

Well, actually, I found some other data on http://www.telegraph.co.uk..., It states that being gay 'IS' related to genes, although not completely. Also, even if being gay isn't caused by the effect of genes, I still don't see what is wrong about being gay. Well, people's preferences are different, don't you think? (By the way, I'm confused about this topic- is it just about gays or gay marriage?)
Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president ever.

I accept this challenge and look forward to the debate. I will be arguing that Ronald Reagan was not the greatest American president ever; the burden of proof is with my opponent, whom will have to prove that not only was Ronald Reagan a great president, but the greatest president in American history. Since the debate is comparitive in nature, I will be providing examples of presidents that were greater than Ronald Reagan. Also my opponent's set up for the debate is flawed, so I assume that Round 1 is acceptance, Round 2 are arguments, and Round 3 will be either closing statements or rebuttals; I'd like for my opponent to clarify this in Round 2 if he'd be so kind. Good luck, and have fun. Let's get this debate cooking. (TM)
Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president ever.

It seems like many people on DDO The idea of this one is to have 5 fairly short rounds. We'll look at the statistics and accomplishments of Ron Reagan. Rules: No trolling, no personal attacks, or anything of that nature. Round 1 - Acceptance Rounds 2, 3, and 4 - Clash Round 5 - Closing Statements (no new arguments) May the best win! And one last thing: The Con does NOT HAVE to provide a counterexample. I want the focus of the debate to be on Reagan, not other presidents.