BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

The state of Utah should significantly increase plastic waste ! Why? 1.Becuse it would result in a massive economic boom for the state.2.Create countless new jobs.3.Benefit the enviroment. 4.Get rid of plastic waste."Utah company turns plastic waste into oil"[1]Australian Priyanka Bakaya, a woman of Kashmiri descent, who has developed a way to turn unwanted plastic waste into oil and diesel fuel.[1] So we should if anything increase plastic wase production. Bakya whos PK Clean company is based in Utah currently has the capacity to turn 20,000 pounds of non-recycled plastic in 60 barrels of oil per-day for only 25$-30$. The potential for the company seems great.[1] "In the U.S. alone, if we converted all non-recycled plastic waste into fuel, this would represent over 10 billion gallons of oil each year," she said. "Imagine if 25 percent of all automobile fuel in the U.S. could be fueled by plastic waste?"[1] Given more plastic waste for this company to consume it would undoubtly grow and it would surely provide Utah with a massive economic boom creating thousands of jobs and would flourish unfathomably since as PRO correctly pointed out " Imagine 8 football fields covered thickly with plastic bottles: this is the equivalent to the number of plastic bottles discarded in the US every five minutes."IMAGINE ALL THE FUEL!. NOT ONLY THAT THIS FUEL WOULD BE CHEAPER! TO MAKE SO CHEAPER TO BUY!!!!!!!!!!!3.Benefit the enviroment. Having more plastic waste in UTAH for this company to consume and convert into fuel would benefit the enviroment in numerous ways. There would be less plastic going to landfiils,there would be less of a demand for fossil fuels, and CHEAPER FUEL.4.Get rid of plastic waste... I think this is self-evidently true. PLASTIC WASTE > FUELSources.http://www.sltrib.com...If you value evidence and logicVote CON
The people of the world no longer have frontiers left to explore.

Even though we might have already reached some of these "frontiers", such as the aforementioned deep sea and space, we haven't thoroughly explored them yet, and once we accomplish this exploration it would be suitable not to deem them as frontiers anymore. After all, The American West stopped being the frontier only once we had it fully settled and kicked out all the natives. We've yet to even come close to fully exploring the deepest areas of the ocean, and uncover the most intricate secrets of the human mind. What you fail to realize about space, as well, is that it's still a frontier. Though we may not be star-skipping any time soon, we still have the immediate solar system to conquer for our own. First man on Mars, anyone? Plus, if we progress far enough, in time we may in fact be venturing beyond this solar system. There will always be new frontiers as we progress farther and farther in our scientific achievements. Your point about the sitcoms is true, I'll give you that. However, despite the overwhelming quantity of rehash present in the media, original content is still making the airwaves. Breakthroughs in special effects and visuals in the movies and video game industry, new takes on comedy and drama with HBO and Showtime original shows, the radically original method of plot progression employed in Cloverfield; the list goes on. I'd also like to touch upon video games a little bit, as I wrap up my argument. Up until recently, in video games, we've only been able to see and hear. But now we've broken through barriers and created motion and touch sensors, and extensive internet capabilities. Who knows what brave new world of video gaming lies in our future? That's one frontier you cannot ignore.
The people of the world no longer have frontiers left to explore.

the problem i see with this, is that there ARE theories. whilst only theories... they prove manny things in the world. they make sense and are often held as fact. they're strongly held and given to students as fact. we build off them and understand more and more just using these ideas. if one theory isn't true several hundred ideas on a topic are all off. the human mind however has been looked into... 'its not the cells that we don't understand but the way they work and move, how we understand it's inner workings in regards to what makes it tick. but in that very regard. we do understand the brain, we know where people are going to think, and how a specific brains will come to specific conclusions. as for the Pacific oceans, we've been exploring most of it for a good number of years since we've started using pressure resilient robotic-subs to map and chart the bottom of the sea along with the study of underwater earthquakes.
The people of the world no longer have frontiers left to explore.

The human brain is a largely unexplored mass of cells. We have no idea what most of it does, and how it does it. The Pacific ocean is a largely unexplored mass of water. We have no idea what most of it looks like near the bottom, and what wonders it contains. Notice something similar between the two? Yes, they are both largely unexplored masses of something, and we have no idea what most of them do/look like. These are physical frontiers, and they can't be disregarded. Most of science is made up of theory, not fact. Science itself is an everlasting pursuit of the horizon, and it is never truly reached until it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true. So far, the only things proven as such are the most basic and geometric of scientific facts and principles; hell, not even the origin of our cells is definitively proven yet. Which brings me to another frontier: the past. Where we come from, how we got here, and how many monkeys we had to evolve from are all areas of research being pursued currently. And just to name another frontier, how about the microscopic world? The Large Hadron Collider being built is only one more step to discovering what we are made of. It would be fruitless and everlastingly time consuming to keep naming more frontiers because the simple fact is this: as long as there is science, there is a frontier. As long as there is theory, there is mystery. As long as there is progress, there is pursuit.
The people of the world no longer have frontiers left to explore.

i'll start right away with just this... where else is there? we've mapped the entire globe and into space. we've gone beneath the ocean and out of our own Galaxy. from north to south, east to west, we've seen it, or we've done it. we know why we do things, we know what makes other people think, we've explored not only the physical world but our own minds and everything else... what could you possibly do that wouldn't be new? you cant make a hit sitcom no one else has seen or done yet, you cant write a novel without alluding to several books and ideas given to the world already, movies and even songs fall under the same categories as all the ideas before hand. the world is our oyster.. we've grabbed it, and stolen its pearl. its not necessary a terrible thing. we now have a better understanding of the world, and how to do things. but there's no fight really to look into. where can you go?
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

The idea of the League of Nations intervening was so that the U.S. would not have to. There is no international law regarding the U.S. as a global police force, and if there is a foreign problem, it is not America's duty to intervene. In addition, the leaflets were dropped after the atomic bombs were dropped (http://www.commondreams.org...). And anyway, if random pieces of paper rained down telling you to evacuate from your country, most people would not feel obligated to leave.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

(It's cool.) As you mentioned in round one, there was no 'proper warning'. However, a little known fact is that warning leaflets were dropped into the cities, telling citizens to evacuate or face the consequences. (http://www.damninteresting.com...). I think you misunderstood what I was saying with the Kamikaze pilots. It was meant to further prove that without an absolute intervention, Japan would have killed themselves out. The League of Nations was unable to do much to prevent WWII or WWII related issues, such as the breaking of the Geneva Convention, the Holocaust, etc. (http://geography.about.com...). Also, did you honestly expect the war crazed Axis Powers to listen to The League of Nations? 'Oh sorry for our little world conquest tantrum. We'll remove our forces immediately!'
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

In your reference to Japanese pilots killing themselves in the face of the war, it would not make sense to nuclear bomb them to get them to stop killing themselves. An analogy to this would be penalizing mentally depressed people by demeaning and cruel to them. In addition, you brought up the point of Chinese and other Asian countries being oppressed by Japan. This is not the problem of the U.S. if another country is being influenced negatively. If it is a serious issue, it is the duty of the United Nations, or League of Nations at the time, to intervene and prevent such an occurrence. It is not the United State's duty to police the world and intervene in every chance that it gets. The League should have dealt with the Japanese, not the United States. (And sorry for forgetting the acceptance round; I'm new to this site. I guess now it's lopsided now.)
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

(Good speech, but round one was only supposed to be acceptance) The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified for several reasons. For one, Japan had killed over"6,000,000 Chinese, Korean and other ethnicity in the invasion of China (http://www.hawaii.edu...)." For another, the allies had made it clear that they would only accept unconditional surrender, which Emperor Hirohito would not comply too. (http://www.history.com...). Also, Japan was starting to kill themselves over the need for victory-literally-. Over 1500 Kamikaze pilots died in WWII. (http://cronkitezine.asu.edu...)." Lastly, the bombings of Japan saved even more lives from a war-fare death. A Japanese general stated that 'we would have kept fighting until all the Japanese were dead', further strengthening my above argument. (http://m.theatlantic.com...)
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

What exactly constitutes justification for killing hundreds of thousands over something that could have been prevented? While it was necessary for the U.S to withdraw from Japan, dropping a fifteen and twenty-one kiloton atomic bomb without a truly proper warning was not necessary. They very likely could have been much more diplomatic than they were, and killing 225,000 in two bomb blasts does not compare with a death toll of 1,000 at Pearl Harbor. Obviously, the Japanese were more at fault for the loss of life during the course of World War II, but killing that many people to end a war quickly makes us just as much of a terrorist as them.
If there is free will than an all knowing god is not possible

you seem to have completely missed my argument. my argument was that because god already knew they would Eat the fruit, they were unable to not eat the fruit because if they had god would be wrong and there for not all knowing. This raises the question how can someone be blamed for something they had to do? I would like to show the audience the comment my opponent was referring to "So what if God knows what you will do? In your own mind, you get to choice what you want to do. God knows the path you will take, but He does not force you along it. The human chooses to do what he/she wants out of his/her own conduct. For example, you know when a mom tells her child not to do something like smash a ball into a window? The mom knows already that the child will do it, but gives the child warning and lets the child chose for himself if he wants to or not. It's relative".{studentathletechristian8} what my opponent does not realize that not only does this not solve my question {how can free will and an all knowing god can coexist?} but actually supports my hypothesis. in his first sentence he states that god knows what we will do. then in the second sentence states that in our minds we have free will. the problem here is that this debate has nothing to do with perceived free will. "a mother also know what does her son like or love, what does her son will do in a certain situations, but does that mean the mother is compelling the son's freedom?" this argument is extremely dishonest because the mother does not have absolute knowledge of what her son will do, at best she can know the most likely result would be. so with accord to the parameters of this debate lets assume this mother can see into the future. I will show this example from 2 points of view to illustrate what perceived free will is. first the mother, knows that in the future he son will stand at a fork in the road he can go left, right, or straight. the mother having absolute knowledge of the future KNOWS her son will turn left, because of this the only outcome is for him to turn left. second the son, the son now stands at the fork in the road to his knowledge there are 3 options. after some thought he{believes he} chose to go left. this is perceived free will because in actuality there is only one option. now for my opponents final round I would like him to answer the question If a god knows what will happen can you choose to do anything but what he already knows? yes or no with some elaboration{in his own words}. if he can not manage to give a legitimate answer to this I do not see how he could win this debate. I would like to remind the voters that this debate is about absolute free will not the perception of it. finally one of my opponents very own quotes from round 2 supports my hypothesis "God knows the future and control{s} the future" by future it can be assumed that a person is involved, so if god controls the future how could he not control the actions of the people in that future.
If there is free will than an all knowing god is not possible

the test in Eden is a flawed one, if god knows all than he must know the future so before he ever posed this test he knew they would fail. this same argument could be made today. so when you are born god already knows you will go to heaven or hell. does this not negate free will. now onto your second argument can god change his mind? well the clear answer is no, an all knowing god can by definition not change his mind. this is true because he would already know that at that point in time he would have changed his mind. This was meant to be a general debate about any all knowing god because of this bible quotes do not hold weight in this debate. If a god knows what will happen can you choose to do anything but what he already knows. now I await your explanation as to how free will and an all knowing god can coexist I thank you for excepting this debate I know the con side of this argument is a difficult one. gl.
If there is free will than an all knowing god is not possible

Hello to my fellow, what an intellectual and challenging opponent, I am gladly to take this debate. First of all to know that can human have the free will to choose, let's us all look at Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God had given Adam and Eve a test, the simplest test in all His tests for humanity, we can see even though God is a very acrimonious and just God, but God still want to give people free choice to choose, like in this story, to obey God, or to obey earthly temporary knowledge? but even though God is omnipresent, all knowing and Almighty God, do you think He would ever change His mind because that's a big and important argument in this debate, and to answer this, let's us look at another Genesis "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. "(Genesis 6:6-7) God REPENTED to created man on earth my friend, God did indeed changed His mind. And I'll say more in the next argument, thank you, hop to see your argument soon.
10 year old having a phone

cell phones are a must in this century, if you drive or are far from home. a 10 Year old are always insight of an adult if its not a teacher its a parent, and if its not them than its a neighbor or even a friends parent. If there ever were to be an emergency than the adult can call for help. you saw that the parent should just get them a flip phone. but come on now with all this new technology your really think that the parent is going to settle with a flip phone?
Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games.

Already tried this once, but the servers at DDO are messed up. So yeah, just pick a topic related to gaming. I will debate the opposite side, regardless of my opinion. First round: state your position and topic clearly, as well as acceptance; my acceptance, while I don't know the topic yet, is given already.You may also state definitions, if you wish.Good luck, and, of course, LEEEROOOOOYYYYYYY JENKINS!!!
Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games.

DefinitionsOk, I might have to concede here. If mind sports are to be considered separate from the overall term of sports, then I cannot debate that Esports can be considered real sports. I'm fine with losing this debate, both sides did well, and I feel we have accomplished much ground. Besides, I only have 16 more hours before this debate gets shut down.UPDATEWOW, I had a page typed up then my internet temporarily went down. I hate everything right now.ANYWAYS, to summarize, everything that I had typed, I decided to address arguments despite having had already forfeited. The idea that games don't have strategy as a blanket statement is absurd. One of the sources that you shrugged off actually had some good bits of strategy, which you had ignored. I can't do this argument justice because I'm not good enough at strategy games, and even if I was, it's not as much something that can be explained as it is something learned through practice. Not good enough an argument? Too bad, I'm tired, and most people from my experience already know it's true.I ended it with asking if you were serious about the strategy thing. I found there were a few reasons you could be arguing against games having strategy without believing it. Since I have already forfeited, just tell me if you have, ok? Well debated, etc., I'm going to bed
Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games.

The Definition of SportAlright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed "intellectual sports", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be "sports".sources:(https://www.chess.com...)(http://londonchessconference.com...)Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are. Skill and Strategy in Games I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include "Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven IllogicalThis next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is "why shouldn't they be?". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.
The claim that "97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists" is a lie.

Let me jump right in. You claim that the 97% of scientists absolutely do not side with the notion that global warming is man-made. Quite the opposite, the issue of global warming is a fatal by-product from years of pollution and toxic waste dumping that has called for a need for a change in. Illustrating this point, various organizations are able to prove that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man-made. According to NASA and their "Scientific Consensus" page, "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree..." going so far as to provide footnotes and sources, along with the names of other major scientific organizations to back up its claims, such as John Cook, et al., in "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," and “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” published in the National Academy of Sciences and W. R. L. Anderegg. Furthermore, other institutions and respectable websites such as Scientific American (How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming) to FactCheck.org (Santorum's Climate Consensus Claims).