BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels

sure, i would suppose that we shouldn't support ethanol due to the harms it causes on food supply and costs. there are plenty of other sources mentioned, such as algae and switch grass, and maybe sugar sources like brazil, etc that could be used. and, i do not see a problem with various energy sources you pushed for, such as natural gas, and some of the benefits you gave, at least for the sake of argument. it is somewhat beside the point, though, of whether the government could increase our economic efficiency by intervening instead of letting pure free market economics dictate the result. con argues "even assuming that governments are more efficient and making them be produced, it begs the question whether or not we need them to decrease the climate threat". he is pretty much overlooking that the focal point of this debate IS whether the government can increase our efficiency. if we assume that, then the debate is pretty much over. if we get into climate threats, i will just grant whatever you argue for the sake of argument, cause it is beside the primary points being debated. the current energy sources are bad, because they put a strain on our economy by taking resrouces from he masses that could be going to supporting various other industries instead of just one, an better supporting the eocnomy at large. the CO2 thing is a factor too, in that a far majority of scienitits consider it a bad thing, but it's not worth getting into a CO2 debate about given the focus of the debate. " was truly efficient, it would not need government intervention". i gave the example of the catch 22. no supply cause no demand, no demand cause no supply. big money would surely intervene if there was a clear outcome as to waht will be our replacement for gasoline. but, it's not clear enough what it will be. it is clear though, that there will be something. if it's not a high enough chance of success, say 50 or 60%, or... if the returns are too remote in time, private investers won't do it. that doesn't mean the government can't interven when it's only a 30 or 40 percent chance, or whatever is the most likely alterantive, or when the returns are remote for a private invester but not remote for economic benefits to society as a whole if done sooner than later.
the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels

i'm not sure why con is talking about CO2 emissions, and things such as solar power. this debate is clearly about improving our economic efficiency vis a vis gasoline from cars, through government involvement. id suppose con was just being sloppy in his response? con talks about the benefits of CO2, etc, to going green. i'm just arguing about bottom line economic efficiency though. the government can help expedite the transition. i suppose it's possible to argue, from my initial post, that we shouldn't worry about that stuff given CO2's supposed benefits. but this does fly in the face of what by far most scientists conclude, and ignores that we want to put priority on making energy as cheap as possible to ensure our economy is maximized.
Having gun in your house is dangerous.

First things firs. Answering questions. I'm going to count sentences with word why as questions.1 "Why do people go hunting with them". For fun, to show their skill, to have free dear. Probably because of those reasons. I had never tried to go hunt. And my statement was "Having gun IN YOUR HOUSE is dangerous". Next question "why don't we just use a spear like old times". You answered this one for me. "Why do people have guns if they are so dangerous". Well I don't know I'm just trying to aware them that they (firearms) are dangerous. And the last question "Why do I let my eleven-year-old daughter use and have her own twenty-gauge if it is so dangerous". That is your deal what gun are you going to buy to your FUTURE daughter. In your profile it said that you are 18 ears old 18-11=7. You could not have kids at that age. Now let me show you that you were wrong in some places. "Gun's are not dangerous". The definition of danger is: liability or exposure to harm or injury. So you are basically saying that firearm can not bring any one harm or injury, here is an small secret: they are made for that. And you said "Statistics show that half the people that say guns are dangerous haven't shot, used, or even touched a gun in their whole lives". Which statistic, were did you took it from, were are your sources? What are firearms made for carnage, homicide, massacre. All those words mean "killing". And that is the only reason why have firearms being made for. Sources: http://www.dictionary.com...
Having gun in your house is dangerous.

Gun's are not dangerous. Even though this is a matter of opinion most people would agree with me. Guns are not dangerous unless used in the wrong way. It is not guns that are killing people. The people are killing people. Statistics show that half the people that say guns are dangerous haven't shot, used, or even touched a gun in their whole lives. Whether it be in a store, at a bank, in your house, or anywhere else there could potentially be a gun. If guns are so dangerous then why do people go hunting with them, why don't we just use a spear like old times. I'll tell you why guns are more efficient. You can use guns to protect you. You use guns to go hunting and get meat. Why do people have guns if they are so dangerous? Why do I let my eleven-year-old daughter use and have her own twenty-gauge if it is so dangerous? Answer my questions then we will talk.
Using artificial body parts in medical training is causing dehumanisation in the medical practice

The use of artificial body parts is causing dehumanisation in the medical practice. I have spoken with people who have trained in recent years and I can see how much of the training has become very "success" or "failure" based. With many simple tasks such as stitching up a patients wound that have been practised beforehand on a "wound closure pad". Where the student will then receive a passing or failing mark. Does this make the treatment of people more like a game where, you can either achieve your goal or fail. Does it remove the focus from each individual and the specific case or illness they have presented with? Dehumanisation in the medical practice has been a large issue for many decades, I ask are we coming even closer to treating patients more like objects that need to be fixed, than people who have presented with an illness or ailment that needs to be addressed. If we continue on the path we are currently on, promoting the use of such training aids, are we in some way pushing away from the treatment of patients? I am not sure at which point we would find our middle ground, the use of cadavers in medical training is still commonplace, this allows students to examine the body as a whole, having a somewhat personal interaction with not only the human form but also a person who may have been a patient before their arrival on table. However cadavers are not always available. Creating a market for artificial human parts to be used in training. I suppose that I have two questions really, how can we create training tools in the future that allow us to take into account the variety and complexity of individual circumstances? And, Could artificial human parts be designed to in some way allow doctors to keep their ability to treat a person, rather than providing a solution to the problem presented to them?
Abortion: A woman's right to Choose

Thank you Faustian for setting up/organizing this debate! I formally accept the terms and agree to debate this issue. *** DEFINITIONS: Medical Definition of quickening (should it be used): the first motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother usually somewhat before the middle of the period of gestation Medical Definition of quicken quickened; quickening: to reach the stage of gestation at which fetal motion is felthttps://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of human: 1 of, relating to, or characteristic of humans2 consisting of humans3 a) having human form or attributesb) representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature Definition of human being for Students: a man, woman, or child : person Definition of human for English Language Learners: a person Definition of human for Students: human being Medical Definition of human: 1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans b: primarily or usually harbored by, affecting, or attacking humans 2 : being or consisting of humans3 : consisting of members of the family Hominidaehttps://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of conception: 1 a : (1) the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) : embryo, fetusb : beginning Definition of sperm: a cell that is produced by the male sexual organs and that combines with the female's egg in reproduction Definition of sperm: 1 a : semenb : a male gamete; especially : spermatozoon Medical Definition of oocyte: an egg before maturation : a female gametocyte—called also ovocyte Definition of person: 1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christiansb : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures4 a archaic : bodily appearanceb : the body of a human being;5 : the personality of a human being Definition of person for English Language Learners: a human being Legal Definition of person: 1 : natural person 2 : the body of a human beinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of person: 1 : human, individualhttps://www.merriam-webster.com... Medical Definition of a Person:1. A living human.2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.3. The living body of a human.4. Physique and general appearance.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Definition of a Person:1. a human being, whether an adult or child:2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. http://www.dictionary.com... Definition of Moral Relativism: moral relativism, the belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences. https://prolifetraining.com...***Amendment: "In light of the glitch issues the website has been having regarding forfeiture, it should be assumed that should time expire on an opponent, they have conceeded the debate [unless the site cannot be opened, as has happen twice in the last week - down two days last weekend]."
Abortion: A woman's right to Choose

FaustianJustice will be debating the PRO side, meaning a woman has the right to choose to continue a pregnancy or not. PGA will be debating the CON side, meaning a woman does NOT have the right to choose to halt a pregnancy. For the purposes of this debate, termination of pregnancy due to a clear and reasonable threat to the life of the mother will not be considered, as it is assumed by both parties to be an extenuating and acceptable (though deeply regratable) circumstance. R1) Acceptance, explanation of terms or acronyms, definitions of terminology if desired. R2) Opening arguments R3) Rebuttals, NO NEW ARGUMENTATION, citation may be used in support or refutation of a presented argument R4) Addressing of rebuttals and conclusion, no -new- citation may be presented, no new argumentation may be presented. This debate is slated for 4 rounds with 72 hours per round per opponent, and to be judged by a selected jury of voters. For those reading along, please refrain from commenting until after the debate has been judged, so as to not influence future prongs of the debate. Should there be an apparent technical issue regarding pictures that do not post, links that are put in the debate, but fail due to typo (or other), corrections may be made in the comments section by the debaters, and should be held harmless by judges. In light of the glitch issues the website has been having regarding forfeiture, it should be assumed that should time expire on an opponent, they have conceeded the debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- General Terms Pro might use: Viable - For most hospitals in the United States, the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. The term "age of viability" refers to the point in pregnancy at which the baby could have a chance of survival if born prematurely, which is generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy. SCotUS: Supreme Court of the United States LTA: late term abortion - established as an abortion that occurs after a point when its reasonable to conclude the fetus is viable Personhood: the quality or condition of being an individual person. The above terminology is not designed to limit Con's use of words, should alternate impressions or definitions be desired, they may be presented and if needed debated upon as well, just as Pro's might, nor is this short list designed to be limiting. Judges, this challenge may or may not have come as a surprise to you, and for which I apologize if you have no interest.
god is immoral and hates, he hates children a primary focus, but also hates women, gays, animals

1. I stopped reading after "You still haven't shown why ," because I have. Only a complete buffoon with absolutely no edumacation nor intelligence would not get it and not know the why. But you, with your stunning brilliance, obviously, and rather clearly you do not have any genuine friends or loved ones. None. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and never ask you a single question. For that I cannot even pity you. But you deserve it. And you did it to yourself. And the way things are going you will die alone, bitter, and lonely. 2. If you were to repeat anything in your bible that I have quoted to you from your god as being righteous, just and loving as you obviously assume that they are, to anyone and I do mean anyone, especially to the highest in the land, namely the supreme court, and you would make any attempt to plead your case, take one lucky guess at what would happen to you with such kind loving, caring, insatiable verses? Duh. 3. I also know that with that opening ridiculous statement of yours on this argument especially, that all you are trying to do is bait me into your nonsensical contemptible little game that only children play in a meager attempt to get a rise out of their so-called opponents. Because of those 3 things, I"ve won the debate.
Is the us a empire in terms of military and influence? If so should we give it up

1. You may have missed a few punctuation marks and capitalization making it difficult to comprehend. 2.You have failed to refute my claims of how other nations are influenced by us. 3.You have failed to refute about how every country is an empire except trying to compare the Romans. The Romans weren't always conquering, they were defending from foreign threats. After a war the losing country surrenders or there is a stalemate, where no one wins. If someone surrenders they have to give into the terms of surrender, where in world war 1 Germany gave up territory to France, Poland, and Belgium after losing, Russia lost territory which became new nations, parts of Poland and Romania. So territory was lost by countries and gained by others. Kind of like conquering. If there was a war between America and Mexico and we won, there most likely would either be new states or New Mexico and Texas would be bigger if we won.
Is the us a empire in terms of military and influence? If so should we give it up

True the host country can do that. First of all technically, you don't need a emperor for an empire. Second really every nation is an empire in its own way. In world War I(the great war) Germany was considered the German empire even though they didn't go around conquering, until Hitler at least. Same with Austria-Hungary in World war I. We not only own Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. So we own a few more islands than Puerto Rico. People in many other countries wish they were like America and are adopting styles and customs. Plus we are involved with trying to stop terrorists and quite a bit in Africa and the middle east.
Islam does not resrict women.

" My opponent quoted the hadith. The hadith is not the word of god, and should not be taken as such, because it is the word of the prophets, and no human can be right 100% of the time." We don't know the word of "God." He doesn't exist after all, and you can't demonstrate the contrary. The fact remains that the hadith are part of Islam. They contain restrictions, therefore... :P. " Also, about that passage from the Quran. It has nothing to do with this debate, violence in the Quran is a whole other issue." It has something to do with the debate because it invalidated an argument you used to counter my argument which had something to do with the debate. Therefore, false.
Islam does not resrict women.

My opponent quoted the hadith. The hadith is not the word of god, and should not be taken as such, because it is the word of the prophets, and no human can be right 100% of the time. Also, about that passage from the Quran. It has nothing to do with this debate, violence in the Quran is a whole other issue. I thank my oppenent for an intresting debate.
Islam does not resrict women.

" The 911 catastraphe is not the doings of Islam but of the few people who, unfortunately took it to juctify their horrible attackes" When a party, philosophy, or religion, affirms the epistemological validity of FAITH, i.e belief without evidence, they are responsible for the consequences. When a party holds a single document as absolute, they are responsible for every phrase in that document, incluing the ones that they didn't really mean, such as "putting infidels to the sword" and such. This means Islam is responsible down at least two roads for the specific philosophy of 9/11 (And, I should note, Christianity, Judaism, certain sects of paganism, Hinduism, Confucianim, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Plato, along with several others I am not aware of or do not recall, are responsible for at least one apiece :D). "I meant particularly females." Doesn't matter what you meant. The resolution doesn't say anything about particularly. It is the resolution you are to be defending. Though even were that not the case: The Prophet said, "A woman should not travel except with a Dhu-Mahram [an Islamic legal category covering a woman's husband and any man she cannot legally marry], and no man may visit her except in the presence of a Dhu-Mahram." (Hadith - Bukhari 3:85) Also, they are forbidden from entering the mosques on most occasions, and highly restricted the rest of the time: http://lastisland.wordpress.com...
Islam does not resrict women.

The 911 catastraphe is not the doings of Islam but of the few people who, unfortunately took it to juctify their horrible attackes. Terroism is not cuased by islam, terrorism is caused by unjust people, and is therefore a entirely differnt arguement. "The very existence of Islam, for example, prevents any aspiring female (or male) cartoonists in certain European countries from depicting anyone who looks vaguely like the Prophet Muhammed in an unfavorable light." I meant particularly females. Like there is nothing in Islam that does not allow women certain privlages men can have.
Islam does not resrict women.

Islam, unfortunately, restricts a large number of people, be they women or men, muslim themselves or not. reï¿½strict (ri strikt′) transitive verb to keep within certain limits; put certain limitations on; confine The very existence of Islam, for example, prevents any aspiring female (or male) cartoonists in certain European countries from depicting anyone who looks vaguely like the Prophet Muhammed in an unfavorable light. This would not be the case were it not for Islam. It also restricted the owners of the World Trade Center, probably some of whom were female shareholders, from remaining in possession of an intact set of towers- all the evidence indicates were it not for Islam this restriction would have been lifted, indeed, it would never have been enforced by creative use of aircraft. As for more intended restrictions, of course, there are still several, some of which you think you have addressed. Islam restricts its followers from eating pork. This applies, as it happens, to women, therefore contradicting your position. " The hijab, the main reason people think islam oppresses women, is a personal coice, and is meant to liberate them from men who look at them and judge them based on physical appearance." It may indeed be a personal choice- incited by Islam. Not all restrictions have to be external, if you impose a restriction on yourself because of a religion, the restriction was caused in part by the religion. Also, unfortunately, if it is indeed meant to do as you describe, that's frankly stupid. It won't work. The hijab makes one's physical appearance MUCH MORE DISTINCT from men, and therefore makes it all the easier for them to judge one based on looks. Now if the hijab applied to both sexes equally, that would be a different story. "Islam simply sugests that you dress modestly, and i'm sure no religion does not wish you dress decently." This debate is not about the relative restrictiveness of Islam compared to other religions. Just because other religions recommend similar self-restriction, does not mean it is not a restriction. Also, two other flaws. "Modestly" and "Decently" are two very different terms. I for one consider "Modesty" to be indecent for human beings. Arrogance, not modesty, is the state of mind proper for a member the only species capable of shaping the world to his needs by use of his mind, at least if they are a member with the full abilities implied. Two, were "modestly" and "decently" synonyms, which they are not, I can think of a few religions off the top of my head that do not recommend such dress, indeed they recommend the opposite. Satanism for example. Kahloism. Various subsets of Paganism, especially certain sects of Greek Pagan priestess-prostitutes.Most of which, might I note irrelevantly, have never done nearly so much damage to the world as the religions that preach "modesty", including the Abrahamic religions.
Islam does not resrict women.

The hijab, the main reason people think islam oppresses women, is a personal coice, and is meant to liberate them from men who look at them and judge them based on physical appearance. So, by wearing a hijab they free themselves from that form of opression. In the western society, many people do end up with unfair treatment based on their looks. Also, nowhere in the quran does it actually say that you MUST cover yourself, it is just what the propheets wives did. Islam simply sugests that you dress modestly, and i'm sure no religion does not wish you dress decently.