BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We will never run out of oil

Hrm well i'm not sure my burden is all that and such. I was sorta hoping for a peak oil guy or someone who was going to throw out a lot of links, data theory etc. like the guy that's clobbering me on the global warming bit. Buy you're being tricksome. Ok, so I have this burden. I can catagorically say that there will always be oil because the process that made the oil that's around still occurs. Sure it's gonna take some time, but there will always be oil. So there :D Additionally, you need to prove that somehow technology will allow us to tap the other 60% of the oil that we can't seem to get out of existing wells. That oil is just sitting there because we can't get it out of the ground. So even if technology stays the same there will again always be oil. You're burden is to prove we can. On top of that we can make our own oil: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a process using hydrous pyrolysis for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often known as biomass and plastic) into light crude oil. It mimics the natural geological processes thought to be involved in the production of fossil fuels. Under pressure and heat, long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons with a maximum length of around 18 carbons." But I think instead that we'll see oil increase in price, tar sands become profitable, then shale, then bio-fuels. It's a question of price. At some point (and we're there now at 140/barrel), these substitute products become profitable. You're examples above have product diferrentiation. In a competitive market place with commdodities, price 'wins'.
We will never run out of oil

He assumes that rising prices will mean that, at some point, people will just stop buying petroleum altogether. However, just because there's a cheaper alternative doesn't mean that everybody will switch over. If "cheapness" was the main principle driving everybody, then all we'd see on the road would be bicycles, and all restaurants other than McDonalds would be closed due to bankruptcy, the only clothes you'd see would be rags, and the only toys children would be playing with would be wooden horses and some pieces of chalk. Or maybe even less than the above scenario. But obviously that's not the case. On top of that, there are probably some qualities of oil that are required for certain machinery to run on that biofuel cannot replace, and even if those are replaceable, there are always going to be people that want petroleum just because they feel that their car/machine/whatever can only run on petroleum, instead of some "replacement fuel". People will do that for oil for the same reason why people buy products only of a certain brand, or of a certain look - vanity. Until he proves that for some reason rising gas prices will lead to zero demand for petroleum, or until he proves that we have an endless supply of petroleum, you default CON due to Burden of Proof.
dating is not a good thing

We may choose a woman for body qualities and or for her personality and the female is also baring the same sin because nowadays women choose men based upon looks more than personality which is totally fine because of our base instinct to procreate and leave a mark or legacy on the planet but dating shouldn't be about the sex or the thrill it should be an evening ground for people to know each other by. Not a place for wrong and prohibited activities i will say this again the problem is with the people not dating
Moon landing is a hoax

Alright, I will take this one. First, you would have to prove that is was a "hoax", something no one has been able to do so good luck. Your fighting an uphill battle. I really want to see how you will prove what you are instigating here. I just look at some facts. We have verbal evidence of people landing on the moon. A verbal history is significant, and has held up when the men were asked under pressure. They did not wavier or crack. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Approximately one fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the first Apollo moonwalk.[38] I will start here and see where your proof comes from. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
On Balance Humans Should Adopt Ethical Egoism as a Worldview

Accept in comments. If you accept without my permission, you will suffer a full forfeitFull Resolution - On Balance Humans Should Adopt Ethical Egoism as a Worldview TermsOn Balance - With all things considered or being taken into accountAdopt - Take up or start to use or followEthical Egoism - (1)Normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interestEthical Egoism - (2) http://www.iep.utm.edu...Worldview - A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.Structure First round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.
The Existence Of One God

We have evidence that we evolved, yes. We have transitional fossils for all kinds of species. We have knowledge of the existence of neanderthals. They are a Supspecies of human. We also have the "lucy" fossil. Let's take this further. The fact that every life on earth shares some DNA screams evolution. If we were designed by God, then I don't think he would design us in a way that would point science towards evolution. Monkeys don't transform before our eyes because evolution is a very gradual change. You will never notice it in your lifetime, on large animals at least. Even when monkeys speciate, there will still be monkeys. And to clarify, we didn't come from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor with them. Scientists have more reasons to believe we share that ancestor than us looking alike. We can look at DNA and compare. This is actually quite fainting, every species on earth shares DNA, all related to another. Just a quick note, I suggest that you read up on evolution more (this is in no way an insult, just a suggestion, to help prevent future mistakes). Everything revolves around science. Even if some things are hard to explain, we just keep trying, not jump to the supernatural conclusion. This is was ancient humans did. They used supernatural explanations for tragic natural disasters such as bad storms, and completely missed the fact that there was natural explanations for why those events happened. Of course, there was not a way for them to figure out the natural explanation yet, but if they kept their way of thinking, we wouldn't of advanced as a society. I do not like faith, as we can't know if it stears us in the right direction or not. The more you believe, the more difference you feel, this is correct. Some beliefs make us feel good inside. Even if we did have a supernatural like experience, we couldn't be sure if it was our brains fooling us. Believing something really hard doesn't confirm it.
The Existence Of One God

You say you dont believe in God because there is no evidence to show he is real. Seems to me like an opinion. A 50/50 opinion, no evidence that he for not exist however, prophecies and a holy book as evidence that he is. (Plural) only God and the supernatural he has created can see the unseen. We don't have ability like that unless god places miracles onto people. Its not eyes that are blind. But the hearts. God will lead special people onto the straight path. The past evidence makes since, it is real scientific evidence. As far as the sun setting in a muddy spring. Read the whole book or the verses that relate to the specific verse. Even the ones before and after and maybe it will make more since to you. It may be an analogy and such. I do like the argument however, shows a little education towards the religion. As far as evolution of Adam and Eve go. It's in the Bible, Torah, And Quran. the first humans on earth. The ones we developed from. Do you have proof of apes or monkeys transforming into humans? Or is that just a wild scientific thought. Not everything revolves around science. Especially if there is a god everything cant just be pinpointed. People have had many miracles in life. If we came from monkeys then why aren't apes transforming before our eyes ? We don't have that much of a connection just because certain species look the same don't mean they came from each other. I assume scientists need to close their minds and little. There is one god because no one is like . like doesn't sleep and he is the most great. Again, no proof he doesn't exist, but holy things that he does. It may be hard but it's called faith. And the more you believe the more of a diffrence you feel.
The Existence Of One God

First off, my apologies, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the bible. My fault. But yes, perfect is a subjective term I guess lol. I don't have any evidence at all that he doesn't exist (I refrain from using the word proof as proof only exists in mathematics. ) I simply don't believe in him because is existence is unsupported, no evidence that he exists. I will believe when I get evidence. I don't get anything out of it. No hope you say? I can have hope for the future and whatever I hope for without a God. What happens after I die? Well I have no idea. We can't know until we die. Now, about the science in the quran. At first it seems like a convincing argument for it's accuracy, until you see that it has scientific errors as well. For example, this verse. "Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. .... Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom." (Qur'an 18:86-90). The sun doesn't set in a muddy spring. Actually, on a sphere earth, the sun doesn't set or rise in a specific spot, so this verse doesn't make sense. I'm sure there are other examples, but this is all I need to get my point across. If the quran was written (or inspired, I'm not sure what Muslims say about that part ) by God, then there surely wouldn't be errors like that. It's a huge red flag to me. Now, onto your evolution argument. In evolution, species change over generations because of reproduction, DNA mutations, among others. This eventually leads to speciation. Evolution isn't my strong point, so this isn't very specific, sorry. But why aren't monkeys as smart as us? Because they weren't evolved to be that way. After years and years of evolution, the first forms of what we would consider human was finally here, and they evolved with pattern recognition. Life doesn't have to start off smart in order for future species to be smart. I don't believe in the Adam and eve story because there is no evidence for that story yet. You said again that you believe that there is only one god, the one that you believe in, but his existence has not been verified yet. That hypothesis is also un-falsifiable, so he can't be verified objectively. That makes finding evidence for him an impossible task.
The Existence Of One God

To start off, I need evidence that God holds knowledge and evidence of his existence before that. Second, having two throats would appear weird to us. But what if we had two throats to begin with? In that scenario, we wouldn't think of it weird as all, it would appear natural to us. There also is the possibility of another system for food and breathing altogether (whatever that may be). I think that if he did design us, we would have a better system without a choking hazard. Yes, the design of the human body is great, but that doesn't imply a creator/designer. We must find evidence that he designed it. I agree with you, I can't be sure if he exists or not. Now about the bible. I never heard the verse that references split seas nor the verse that explains how the baby is formed in the womb. If you could elaborate on that, that would be good. I think the bible could have been written by man. It has verses that contradict human nature, which is opposite of what should we expect if we were created by god. For example, lust is considered a sin. Why? It is human nature to lust towards someone we take an interest in, it's basically impossible to avoid. We all are guilty of it, so why is it a sin? Why were we designed to have this lust if it's sinful? The bible could very well have been written to control people, or a variety of other reasons (I'm not making any claims, just elaborating on my doubts and the options).
The Existence Of One God

As far as God being a designer, he is indeed the perfect designer. Have you taken anatomy and physiology? If you take the fundamentals course you will learn so much about the human body and the way it works. humans are lucky. We have Amazing brains and the capacity to think,learn, and grow. Physically speaking , every human has his strength and weakness'. You can say that God created us perfectly whether or not you believe so or not. Yeah super powers would be cool but that wouldn't make us perfect. I think it's pretty perfect how Dubai has sky scrapers created by man. and we are now inventing supercars, planes and hoverboards. The only thing that is stopping the human race is knowledge. God holds knowledge. God is the only one who can tell you the gender of the fetus before the baby has even developed. As far as specifically your throat goes. There is yes, one mouth in which your food enters. But it would be weird to have 2. Your trachea is which you breathe is diffrent from your esophagus in which you eat. Your trachea is covered by an epiglottis which contracts when you eat and such so food doesn't travel down the wrong pipe. God is capable of perfection. He created us the way a are and also created improvments. Without the epiglottis then it would be even more dangerous. Although you cannot see something it surely may exist. You must have an open mind because nothing proves that God isn't real either. in the past the prophet's recieved books from god. I don't believe that a man whom couldn't read or write can event such a book. Such a book that held scientific evidence before it was possible to learn. I.e Iron not being an earthly substance. The split seas. How the baby is created in the womb (referring to holy books and guides) .
The Existence Of One God

The existence of the god you follow very well could be turn out to be correct, but there doesn't appear to be any valid evidence to support him, so we can't say that he is real for sure. I'll ask that you provide some so I'll have something to work with. Anyway, I'll go ahead and explain my doubts on intelligent design so I'll have something to say. IF we were designed by a perfect being, and I mean absolutely perfect, then we would have a perfect design. We do not have this. The hole that I breathe through is also the same hole that I swallow through. This is an extreme choking hazard, and not a great design if you ask me. Lots of people die from choking. Why don't I have eyes on the back of my head? Wouldn't that be a better design so I could see from behind me? Now, of course, these arguments aren't against the existence of god, rather a designer, but in your case you believe both, so I thought I might throw those out there.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

The Death Penalty - is murder, which is morally wrong. It is not the government's place to murder people without war. - Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail." - It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes. - The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully. - Capital punishment is cruel and unusual, violating the constitution. Next, we will get rid of freedom of speech, religion, etc. It is destroying American values. - The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities. - The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently. - Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit. - A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society. - Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. - The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well. - We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. - It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? Speed toward who speed? Kidnap people who kidnap? It teaches no lesson. This is exactly what law is trying to get away from by allowing the government to punish instead of allowing people to get personal revenge. - Why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned. - Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures. - Most jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Letting murderers roam free. - The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
Abortion

I think the main central point that so many pro-lifers don't seem to understand is that just because you don't support legislation against abortion does not mean that we are baby killers. We just feel that if a woman doesn't feel capable of being pregnant and having a baby, she shouldn't be forced to. I almost feel like it's kind of ironic that we are two men debating this issue, which really should be debated between 2 women. Remember, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Have a great vacation! We fit in a good 2 rounds, and hopefully you can get back to finish it off!
Abortion

You said that what I was saying implied that we should kill sick people who don't know what is going on. Well, you have a couple logical fallacies and a couple backfires. First of all, the fetus has never lived and has no idea what life is. They have never known another person except the inside of mom, and their cereberal cortex is empty. They don't do anything for themselves. The same cannot be said for anyone who has been born. Also, they don't know anything is wrong. That is because they do not think except for the bare essentials for life that mom does not supply. Embryos don't even have brains. Now sick people can kill themselves (here, anyway, with Oregon's death with dignity act). Or, they can choose their potential fate with a DNR order. The one most similar to abortion, as well as the most widely performed is simply the family of the inflicted to take the person off of life support. They figure that they won't be able to enjoy life anymore, so they take them off life support. So if that is what you are implying, yes, there should be an option to kill ill people who would no longer enjoy life. Have a great vacation, and don't sweat it if you can't get back in time. Life happens.
Abortion

"So, when did you turn one? Was it a year after your conception? Of course not. Honestly, a blastocyst is a ball of somatic cells. Every time you cut yourself, you destroy more than a blastocyst. However, women don't usually get an abortion until they actually know that they are pregnant. I have news for you. Look at a human embryo. Then look at an embryo from any other animal. They look remarkably similar. Especially other mammalian embryos. It would be hard to tell the difference. And we kill adult animals, so I don't see why killing an embryo is so bad. It gets a little sketchy after it becomes a fetus, but it still doesn't know what is going on. We go to war and kill people from countries we don't like, but the soldiers haven't done anything wrong. But they have a life and they know what is going on. Fetuses don't have a life and they don't know what is going on. I do not support late term or partial birth abortion." They do not have a life and they do not know what is going on. How about people with diseases of sort that don't know what is going on should we just kill them too. When we go to war with other countries it is because they have threatened us in some way. The fetus hasn't threatened anyone. You are saying at conception a fetus or whatever you feel like calling it doesn't have rights. Now tell me why everything doesn't have an equal chance of living. The fetus did nothing wrong it was the women fault for getting knocked up and not being responsible. Why should the fetus pay for that. Its not better for the bay to die that's just a dumb statement. I gotta go right now im leaving on vacation so i dont know if i will respond din time if not we'll have to start it up again thanks