BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Nuclear War is Good

Your whole point is that humanity needs to be reset. While I agree that we are on the verge of collapse, and that we are destroying the environment due to a need of the masses, nuclear war is NOT the way to do it. The effects of nuclear winter would be terrible. http://www.atomicarchive.com... Nuclear radiation would also have terrible effects on the environment. There are better ways we can lower the amount of resources used and protect the planet, and even lower the human population without blowing each other back to the stone age. For example, we could and are working on finding alternative energy resources that would allow for people to harm the environment less. As for overpopulation, which is a problem, we already allow people to have abortions and birth control. That and the will to have less kids nowadays means that humanity has likely reached its peak in population. But think about it, even a new plague would be better than mass destruction. We should find reasonable solutions to these problems, because mass destruction will not fix them, it will just cause more. Sadly, nuclear war may happen soon, and what you want to happen may come true, but that doesn't make me anymore for it.
Global Nuclear War is Good

1.Biosphere collapse inevitable " 3 warrants- resource depletion/overpopulation/inequality Barry 15 [Glen, Glen Barry is a reporter for Scoop Independent News "Biosphere Collapse: The Biggest Economic Bubble Ever" July 19, 2015 http://www.scoop.co.nz... The global ecological system is collapsing The biosphere having its constituent ecosystems liquidated for resources. Inequitable overconsumption has achieved such momentum that key ecological planetary boundaries have been surpassed as human numbers went from one to seven billion in a century " can fairly be characterized as willful ecocide. 2.Nuke War solves Caldwell, 2010 [Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org... . It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, the pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity with each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels. A third factor motivating global war involves timing. If anyone is motivated to wage global nuclear war and has the means to do so, sooner is very likely better than later. If delayed too long, there may be nothing left to gain. With each passing year, the planet's biodiversity decreases, another two percent of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves are consumed, and the risk of biospheric extinction increases. Once gone, these resources are gone forever. Extinct species will never return, and the planet's fossil fuel reserves, once exhausted, are gone forever. Human industrial activity will consume all of the remaining petroleum reserves and destroy millions of species more, including the larger animal species. For those tempted to wage war, the time to strike is now -- in fifty years there will be nothing left to win. 3.We would survive Coughlan 13 [Sean, BBC News Education Correspondent, "How are humans going to become extinct?" http://www.bbc.com... Humanity would survive. Nuclear war might cause appalling destruction, but enough individuals could survive to allow the species to continue 4.When we survive, we will pick up the pieces, start anew with a new mindset Caldwell 2010 (Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org... . As much as the US government and many environmentalist movements would lead you to believe, nuclear war will not be the end of the world. , it well be the salvation of the world. . After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again. Unlike previous history, it is likely that economics wouldn"t continue to be the "driver" of man"s progress. A minimal-regret strategy offers a way to do things differently.
Global Nuclear War is Good

https://www.investors.com... See, people always try to claim that we are "Doomed Right Now!" People always want to predict the end of life and humanity. But it is not going to happen as soon as they claim. The Earth is slowly deteriorating due to humans, yes, and that is terrible, but it is not the end of the world just yet. We still have time, and we don't need to bomb ourselves back in time to fix it. When I say a plague would be better, I mean it would cause less destruction. Basically, nuking will do nothing except stall humanity a little and severely damage both the environment and people in the process. By simply working on more environmentally-friendly solutions to problems, and allowing for more birth control, although forced birth control would be terrible, we can save the earth one step at a time. It is what people have been doing recently with more environmental movements, and it is what we shall continue to do in the future. The world is not doomed yet, and nuclear war, although possible, will not solve much. Also, you say we have a moral obligation to try to save future lives. Aren't the lives of actual people who exist now more important than the lives of potential people in the future. You want to kill living people now to save "future" people later. I understand saving future generations, and we can do that without incinerating people in nuclear explosions. What about the survivors. Yes, many would survive, but what would happen to them? They would just restart and continue to waste resources and not care about the environment, probably eventually nuking each other again. Japan lost two cities to nuclear bombs. That doesn't stop them from toying with nuclear energy, which has caused radiation spills in the past. The sheer amount of destruction and consequences of nukes has not stopped people from continuing to keep them loaded and ready to fire if "necessary." Basically, humans will not learn their lesson. They never have, and never will for the most part, even if a few smart cookies realize it. Climate change is sad, and the world sucks in many ways. But it could be a lot worse, and many are working to improve it still. Nukes are not the answer. https://daily.jstor.org...
Global Nuclear War is Good

Why plague would be better: Less Direct Destruction To Environment Increase The Need For Science And Medicine No apocalypse is good, but I'm just saying, a plague would not have as much destruction, and encourage knowledge in the scientific field for survival. We would survive the war, but what about other organisms we share the planet with? Heavy casualties to them too. We dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we don't see America, Japan or even other countries worried about the consequences of nukes. So, within about 100 years after or earlier of the disaster, humanity would just go back to killing each other due to our aggressive nature. Nuclear war would reset the world, but it would just be stalling. Society and humanity overall is succeeding in this age, and we simply need to work on more ways to support the environment. Besides, scientists of all kinds are constantly predicting the end of the world due to climate change. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's not as bad as the article says it is. Climate change has always been exaggerated for political reasons, and it is still an issue, just not as much as the pro is saying. I say think long-term and slowly try to improve the environment and the way we treat it. Pro says there will be no long-term because one article says we're all screwed.
Global Nuclear War is Good

Lets go to the framing debate first. The Con drops that util should be the lens that this debate is looked at and judged through. So extend my Nye in 86. Now lets move to the Biosphere Collapse debate. The Con makes the biggest mistake of the debate here. They drop Meadows in 14, all of the Cons other solutions don"t mean a thing when we are all dead from the impending collapse in 2 years. They also say abortions again but both meadows in 14 and Barry in 15 assume abortions and still conclude that the biosphere will collapse. Next if we move to the Solvency of the debate the Con makes a few claims That a plague would be better, but gives no warranted evidence as to why or even if it would be better. So extend the Caldwell in 14 that stakes that nukes will solve for the biosphere collapsing Next on the survivability They drop both of their claims so extend Dallas in 15 and Shulman in 12 we would survive this nuclear war. Now on mind setshift Extend Calwell in 3 only after the nukes can we have harmony The Con also brings up that nukes have long lasting effects, good that"s the point to scare the survivors into not repeating the actions that brought them here in the first place
Take 2: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossibole

Due to his unfortunate forfeiture in our previous debate on this resolution, Marauder has asked that a new debate be startd as an extension of the previous one. So, here is the link to the prevous debate:http://www.debate.org...All definitions and rules still apply. In this debate, Con will begin R1 with his rebuttals to my R2 arguments from the other debate.
nationalize education

Local control" is the most sacred principle in American education—a tradition so deeply ingrained in history and practice that its shortcomings are almost never articulated. Yet a look at the history of local control as the organizing principle of schooling suggests that an approach that made perfect sense in the 1700s is crippling American education today. Whatever its successes in the past, local control today assures four major problems: Inconsistent Standards and Inadequate Data: Union Dominance: Establish National Standards: Going back to my first reason Inconsistent Standards and Inadequate Data: Local control assures that we have no overall way to know how children are doing. By leaving the definition of standards and proficiency requirements to the states, No Child Left Behind—like earlier efforts in the educational standards movement—makes it impossible for us to know where kids stand. Instead it has produced a well-documented "race to the bottom" in which many states lower the achievement bar to foster the illusion of progress. Secondly, Union Dominance: Local control, particularly in big cities, often leaves schools in the hands of political school boards who are themselves under the thumb of powerful teachers' unions that dominate their elections and block sensible reforms. As a result of these and related failings, most schools, far from relishing the supposed freedom granted by local control, feel trapped in red tape; principals say they spend their days on unproductive paperwork to comply with endless mandates, when they're not busy navigating Byzantine district bureaucracies to keep the heat on and the supply room stocked. The only way to demand more from schools while freeing educators and parents to find diverse ways for schools to perform better is to take a cue from other advanced countries and nationalize the system a little, especially when it comes to the standards we expect students to meet and the resources we allocate to help them do so. Specifically, we should: NATIONALIZE EDUCATION: The usual explanation for why national standards won't fly politically in the United States is that the right hates "national" and the left hates "standards." But that's changing. Leading figures in both parties now say that in today's "flat" world we can't have the rigor of a child's education, and thus chances for success, depend on the accident of where they happen to be born. Polls show a majority of Americans agree. Most proponents suggest we establish national standards and tests in grades three through 12 in core subjects—reading, math, and science, for starters—perhaps leaving more controversial subjects, such as history, until we get our feet wet with a new regime. In the effort to reform our education system, it is vital that one seeming paradox is understood: It is only by transcending traditional local control, and by getting serious about a new national role in standards and finance, that we can at last create genuine autonomy for local schools.
You can not get me to say no

Whether or not refusing to say no means saying no doesn't matter anymore. In your last post, I managed to get you to accidentally say no twice. You literally said no. Look closely a bit after his speech about being homeless:"Do you have any comments on my speech about the word NO? Did you even read it? It's important."Yes I do actually. I thought it was dumb."Please say the exext opposite of the following: YES"What is an exext opposite? Not a logical question."Please quote the following in your response: NO"There is nothing more for me to say. No matter how you look at it, I have won.REMEMBER, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE WON, THIS ISN'T A SERIOUS DEBATE. DO NOT VOTE. IF SOME IDIOT VOTES, YOU MAY COUNTER-VOTE.
You can not get me to say no

Interesting answers. Please, tell me more about yourself and answer the following yes or no questions. Are you stupid? Have you read War and Peace? Can you do a triple backflip on rollerblades? If the above answer is yes, was this you? http://www.youtuberepeat.com... Are you Chuck Norris? Is Chuck Norris gonna kill you for saying you're Chuck Norris? Will Chuck Norris spare you if you say no? Will you say no then? Well, say no. Will the world end on dec. 21, 2012? Are we debating on Facebook? Are we debating on Debate.org? Do I win this debate? sihgnvsdlgbvslkgjbsdligh? YESYESYESYESYES!!!!!!!!! Well young lady, have you been good to your mother? Is the answer to this question no? Do you wish I would stop asking questions? Are you dead? Are you alive? Is it important to check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters? Are you a trillionaire? Are you homeless? Please explain to me in at least ten paragraphs about your answer to one of these questions. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thanks to this game, I'm starting a band called "no." We're going to reverse Yes songs and find hidden meanings about the word no. Do you have any comments on my speech about the word no? Did you even read it? It's important. Please say the exext opposite of the following: YES Please quote the following in your response: NO Please have a conversation with Cleverbot. http://cleverbot.com... During your conversation, tell him to say no at least three times. Quote the entire conversation here. And since I'm making the rules apparently, I might as well tell you this: Say "no". If you refuse to do this, that's the equivalent of saying no, since you're rejecting to say no, and we agreed earlier that the definition of no is a verb meaning to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval. It says it right here: http://dictionary.reference.com... If you ignore this, that's also saying no. So in one way or another, you must say no. Watch this: http://objection.mrdictionary.net... What did Pheonix Wright say? Quote his exact words. That's all I can think of. Good luck attempting to not say no while at the same time not refusing to say no, which is the equivalent of saying no.
You can not get me to say no

To answer your questions Do you think abortion is wrong? yes Are you against affirmative action? yes Do you want a border fence? yes Should the death penalty be illegal? yes Should drugs be illegal? yes Are you against environmental protection? yes Are you pro for estate tax? yes Are you against flag burning? yes Do you like the flat tax plan? yes Are you against gay marriage? yes Is global warming BS? yes Should guns be illegal? yes Are you against labor unions? yes Are you against late term abortion? yes Are you against Medicaid and Medicare? yes Are you against medical marijuana? yes Are you against minimum wage? yes Are you against the missile defense system? yes Are you against national health care? yes Do you like national retail sales tax? yes Do you dislike police profiling? yes Do you dislike president George W. Bush? yes Are you for progressive tax? yes Are you against social programs? yes Do you want social security? yes Do you want term limits? yes Do you want tobacco rights? yes Do you like United Nations? yes Do you like United States? yes Do you like the war in Afghanistan? yes Are you against the war in Iraq? yes Are you against the war in Iran? yes Do you like the war on terrorism? yes Do you like water boarding? yes Are you against Welfare? yes Are you against the World Trade Organization? yes That was fun, on to the next portion which is the most important issue in my opinion. I'll go with social security. Social security is really nice and helpful. When people get old they have a way to get money and a means to live. My grandparents have social security and it helps them get by. I want to have social security when I'm older so I can live a good old person life. This is a legitimate reason as to why it should be around. My dad is getting up there in age and will need it to get by. Also I'll point out that its a way for the government to protect the general welfare of the people. Social security is any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate income, and just by that definition sounds just. Generally everyone in the US wants social security. We owe it to our older members of society to pay for their retirement. When you have worked your entire life, its important that you take a break. But to take that break you need social security. Who wants to work all their life and die? This is why social security is good for me and the people of the United states. If the government was to abolish social security, there would most likely be rioting. Next segment of our little game. Yes I watched the video, one thing in common with each clip, is that they all featured fictional characters :) Thanks for making the rules for me by the way. (sarcasm) http://www.youtube.com...
Technology Advancements Should Be Mitigated

Hello, Before I introduce myself... First Round is for acceptance only. Few clarifications: 1. Tech advancement is seen as a problem. 2. The problem should be lessened or even better to eliminate it. 3. Con should prove the aforementioned ideas otherwise, though other issues will arise during the next rounds. Further analysis and contextualization will be given on the next rounds. I am a Mechanical Engineering student and I want to know specifically the EFFECTS of technologies in the world, both the good and the bad. I am expecting to have a good opponent, as well as good judges. Thank you. Have fun! -M-
Is math yhe most important subject

Well my opponent didn't submit a very convincing argument, so I'll make this quick/He claims that without science we would still be cavemen, and I agree. But again, we were able to spread and teach science through the usage of language, henceforth English is much more important. Your teacher didn't teach you what math was using math, as that would be impractical. She/he taught you using language. In actuality, language is the only thing we really "learn" without the usage of another medium. We learn language WITH language, as children, by listening to our parents and the people around us. Anything else we learn, we also learn through language. As such, you can not have math without language, but you can have language without math.With this, I'd like for voters to reject the notion that math is the most important subject and votage against the motion brought forth by my opponent. Thank you.
Is math yhe most important subject

I will be arguing in favor English/Language Arts as the most important subject.To clarify: English/Language Arts here will be synonymous and interchangeable with Grammar/Primary Language instruction courses, so as it will also apply to the equivalent in Chinese/Spanish/Arabic/etc speaking schools. I would like to put forward the notion that English is actually the most important subject in school. Why? Easy, we wouldn't have this debate without it. Knowing how to read and write is essential, and much more essential than knowing how to count. Without math you can still read and gain knowledge. You can still express your opinion. However, without English, the entire schooling system itself would fail. You wouldn't be able to read homework, or write essays, or complete tests. You wouldn't even be able to learn math, since your math text would be written with words that you would not understand. But maybe more important than the reading and writing component, is the speaking component. Without English we can not communicate and society itself would fail. No matter what job you have, you have to communicate with others; whether it be your employer or your boss. Without English this is simply impossible. However, there are jobs you can do without math. A writer is one of them. Other jobs are News Reporter, Athlete, Lawyer, etc. However, for all these jobs you need to know how to communicate with others. I put forward the notion that English is much more important than math because it is much more of a necessity than math is.
Plain Cheese Pizzas are Stupid and Pointless

Since my opponent has once again neglected to respond to the debate I feel as though it would be a foolish move to present a final argument. However, present a final argument I shall. As outlined in my argument in Round Two, cheese pizzas serve no purpose in today's society and are obselete and pointless as an item. They acted as the bridge between rudimentary ingredients and the vibrant and topping-heavy pizzas we have now. And since that bridge has been well and truly crossed, there is no valod reason the bland and boring cheese pizza shall ever be considered a serious option when ordering pizza. Unless of course you are a whiny and fussy crybaby who can't handle the taste or feeling of a completely normal pizza with toppings like a regular, functioning human being. Frankly it sickens me that Con would even dare to defend the sickly cheese pizza and I can only assume they have seen the error of their ways and are spending the rest of their lives in isolation to reflect on their terrible life choices and their genuinely awful stance in the god-forsaken cheese pizza. And that is why I believe the plain cheese pizza is stupid and pointless.
Plain Cheese Pizzas are Stupid and Pointless

It appears Con has put their main argument into "Acceptance" round, but whatever, maybe they have something else up their sleeve and that was just the precursor, a taste of what is to come if you like. It's a shame that this taste of what is to come tastes like terrible, terrible cheese pizza. The only reason you'd ever want a plain pizza is because you're some whiny crybaby who can't handle normal food. Plain cheese pizza is for idiots, that is an indisputable fact. It's one ingredient away from being grilled cheese and two ingredients away from being just bread. If you want to eat pizza, get some goddamn toppings. If you want to eat bread and cheese, go to the grocery store, they have plenty of both. If someone asks you what toppings you want on your pizza and you, being the moron you are, say "Just cheese", you aren't answering the question. Cheese isn't a topping, it's a requisite. It is one of the three required ingredients for it to be qualified as a pizza. They're not just going to give you bread with sauce on it if you say "No toppings." Cheese pizza is a stupid and pointless food item that only exists in today's society because of crybaby's and idiots at pizza parties.
Plain Cheese Pizzas are Stupid and Pointless

So cheese pizza, maybe someone is allergic, or maybe they have a lot of people who want pizza and a variety of different options, so you decide to go with plain cheese to please everybody. Or cheese pizza can have seasonings on them you never know, someone can be a vegetarian or for a class party in elementary school, the teachers always order cheese to please everyone. Why would cheese pizzas be stupid and pointless, when that's all people order from some places, and all they order for class parties. You never know.