BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
pich people paying more taxes

Alright Im going to tell you a little about myself. My name is Alexa and Im fourteen years old. My dream is to become a doctor. As you know doctors make a high annual salary. Sadly, I come from a single-parented family and Im well on the poverty line. Few people in my family are successful. Everyday I go to school and work as hard as I can to maintain good grades. I have to miss many social events so I can stay home and study. My aim is for a scholarship (as my mom cant afford to pay) to Harvard University. Well, say I do just that and become a doctor making the max of 200,000 dollars a year in annual salary. Why am I obligated to pay more then the lazy kid beside me who never did his work, never went to college, and dosn't get a high paying job. Flat tax is certainly not equal, but its fair. If we remain on a progressive tax for the rich, not only are we sending a bad message to the younder one, but were being morally and ethnically unjust. I don't know if what your religion is but their are also passages in the bible that show that flat tax is the way to go. Progressive tax for the rich is along the lines of Socialism and Slavery. The act of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not right. It really all comes down to jealousy.
Roy Spencer's recently published study is incorrect

Thank you for this most provocative discussion. I’d like to thank my opponent for taking the time to explain the science where it is explainable in common terms.Climategate:The “climategate scientists” did not manipulate data. Eight independent investigations have cleared these scientists of any wrongdoing. [2]I think it’s debatable whether the data was manipulated. But to say that the investigations have been independent is hardly accurate. Two of the investigations have been conducted by the Universities themselves, the so-called “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” had prior CRU staff on its panel[1]. Perhaps the investigations calling themselves independent are all the evidence you need but the reality is the investigations were anything but.Spencer’s selection of climate models to evaluate:I agree that a conclusion could possibly be drawn from only six climate models. However, for this conclusion to be accurate, the six models must represent the full range of model outputs. As I noted in the last round, some models match the observations very well but others do not. Even if true, this doesn’t prove Spencer’s study incorrect. To be incorrect its conclusions would not logically follow from its premise. And the premise is given the models included does the uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.You have cited Kevin Trenbath but even he blames the data when it doesn’t show global warming:Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low…[2].Conclusion:My opponent may have had issues with the science in the study. But studies often conflict others in any field of science. The best one can hope for is that the peer review process will cause the researcher to go back to the table with the criticisms and try to address them. Sure there are issues raised that may need to be addressed but until they are it is too early to rule out Spencer’s hypothesis as true or false.You’ve been a good sport, thank you for the discussion.Sources:[1]http://online.wsj.com...[2]http://www.wired.com...
Roy Spencer's recently published study is incorrect

I will demonstrate that both of Spencer’s arguments are likely correct, and Spencer’s resulting conclusions are physically realistic. Regarding Spencer’s first argument:Spencer’s arguments are spot on and above reproach. The simple model argument can be made for any research involving climate change. There is simply no way to ensure that all variables which impact climate change are included or to even know which ones are. As Dr. Andrew Dessler stated, “The argument made in these papers. .. is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing. ” If climate scientists have taught us anything it’s that data can and should be manipulated if it helps us reach the preferred outcome. This is simply good science a la Climategate. Regarding Spencer’s second argument:Spencer claims to have demonstrated that, “There is a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. ” While it may be argued that Spencer didn’t choose enough models, he certainly chose enough to reach a conclusion. Given, that no matter how airtight his argument is that it will be nit-picked over trivial matters, I fail to see how your arguments prove his wrong. When scientists account for the full range of model outputs as well as decadal variability, they find that Spencer's claims cannot be correct. As Dr. Trenberth concluded, “The net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations. ” [4] Decadal trends in are only weakly indicative of changes in TOA. [2] Therefore, this variability is not critical in reaching the conclusions that Dr. Spencer has put forth. The implications of Spencer’s paper are physically unrealistic:However, energy budgets of the surface show that ENSO related temperature variations are not radiatively forced. [5] Therefore, Spencer’s conclusions cannot be correct. If the energy budget not radiatively forced then the debt ceiling should be heightened once again. It is because of the debt ceiling that scientists even think that the climate sensitivity is higher. If the raise the ceiling this is no longer an issue. An 8‐yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional, It is explained by more radiation to space (45%) and deep ocean warming (35%) and recently‐observed changes point to an upcoming resumption of upper ocean warming[1]. Sources: [1]. http://europa.agu.org...[2]http://europa.agu.org...
Roy Spencer's recently published study is incorrect

Resolved: Roy Spencer's recently published study is incorrect.Definitions:Roy Spencer: A climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in HuntsvilleRecently published study: A research article published on July 26 which concluded as follows:"The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."http://www.mdpi.com...A non-technical summary can be found here:http://news.yahoo.com...Round one will be for acceptance only.
Transgender Bathrooms

So I'm going to again start with this shorts thing, because for some reason I find it the most interesting. You put "sexually harassing" in quotations this time, which makes me thing that it isn't sexual harassment? Which one is it? Are they or are they not being harassed? By who? If they are why have they not taken legal action against the harassers? It sounds to me that you are calling a old fashioned Street Harassment, which is obviously not sexual harassment or really harassment in general. "I never mentioned that they should create an entire bathroom dedicated to only transgender people. I'm only saying that a transgender woman or male should have the ability to choose which ever bathroom they would like." Yeah so I will admit I was a bit unclear and confusing in the way I wrote my original argument. However, generally female bathrooms don't have urinals. If you want transgender people to chose their bathroom, and have it required by local government that public places provide this, urinals will have to be put in the female restrooms. What practical purpose does this serve? It's not giving Trans - Gender people more rights, and opens a security flaw for pedos to move in on little boys and girls in their respective bathrooms. "I wasn't saying that transgender bathrooms were bad and are promoting rape only that if we are always so worried about little girls in restrooms with older men. I've heard arguments over this topic and again, it may not be a favtor to my original argument but a similar topic, gender equality." It's pretty unclear to me what your saying here. However here's the reason people don't want this to go into place: the lack of security that this would cause for both small boys and little girls entering bathrooms is tremendous. Anyone can say they identity as the opposite gender and nobody can stop them from entering a bathroom. Since a policy such as this gives trans - gender no rights, and only causes issues for everyone, what practical purpose does it serve? In conclusion; A Policy such as the proposed one here gives no advantage to anyone and only causes security issues within bathrooms.
Transgender Bathrooms

You have several points that are very plausible. However in my opinion I still remain pro. I was raised learning to accept the people around me no matter what they are. Although my parents are transgenic in a sort of way. And maybe that is why this is such a controversial topic because they were raised different ways. I never mentioned that they should create an entire bathroom dedicated to only transgender people. I'm only saying that a transgender woman or male should have the ability to choose which ever bathroom they would like. And to the point about girls being indirectly forced to where shorts during summer. It is obviously hot during the summer time, depending on your region, and the most logical option is to where shorts so that is why most stores continue to sell shorter clothing in a woman's department. Then people begin "sexually harassing" woman when it was merely just a last resort. I'm not saying this is one of the factors to my argument but it is a similar opinion I seem to have. I wasn't saying that transgender bathrooms were bad and are promoting rape only that if we are always so worried about little girls in restrooms with older men. I've heard arguments over this topic and again, it may not be a favtor to my original argument but a similar topic, gender equality. I had never said that people I know hate being gay or lesbian or any other sexuality. I simply said that have tried to discover themselves as a person by being with an individual of the opposite sex. I have had conversations with people who were told that they just "haven't found the right guy/girl yet" and thats why they thought they were gay. So they tried out the option of searching for the right one. And that when they were with someone of the opposite gender, they were not content with the relationship. They felt as though you might in a relationship with a person of the same sex. I appreciate your points and counterargument. Thank you
Transgender Bathrooms

Okay so this little bit you mentioned at the end here "Woman are constantly sexual harassed for wearing too short shorts." I'm going to have to go ahead and call an old fashioned citation needed. I also would like to know what you define sexual harassment as anyway. I'm unaware of any woman near me that was sexually harassed for wearing clothes, and furthermore you say that this is the only option for a girl during the summer. I find this quite interesting that there is no choice in the clothes that women wear. You ask: how are people going to be themselves when they are constantly being pushed down? Well first I want to ask you what you expect? Every choice someone makes is bound to have opposition between them and the people they surround themselves with. As an anecdote I cite the fact that my parents are extremely conservative, and even in such an environment I came out left winged. People telling you; "Haha that's dumb" or "Haha you can't do that" will not stop anyone from doing that unless they so chose to. They aren't being forced to by being told they shouldn't. You say you have known a ton of people in your life that hated themselves for wanting to be the opposite gender. It sounds to me like these people that you knew held prejudice towards Trans - Gender people to begin with, and as a result held prejudice to themselves. "So with the controversy over the bathrooms, if you have believed that you are a different gender than what you were born as, then you should use that bathroom." I question what makes you think this? What practical use does this serve? Do you understand the cost of putting more urinals into the female bathrooms, and the risk of security? You could say something like oh this gives trans gender people more rights, but in reality having a bathroom personally accommodated to what you identify as, is no right. "What about the 6 year old boys that mothers send into the men's restroom because they can't use the woman's? How come we have never thought about a little boy being taken by a woman who claims to be transgender?" I find it questionable that you cite an argument conned to your position, and then fail to rebuttal it. I suppose the argument here is that the other side doesn't considered the opposite rape situation, therefore invalid. I ask what makes you think they don't, how do you know that's not the reason there conned to gender bathrooms? In conclusion, up to this far I have been severally disposed with your reasoning for why we should have gender bathrooms, and would like for you to provide with a sound reason for us to transition from where we are now to trans - gender bathrooms.
Transgender Bathrooms

People are constantly telling others to "be themselves" and "express yourself" but how is anyone expected to do so when there is so many others punching them down every time someone believes they truly are the opposite gender? It isn't a life crisis and it isn't just a phase. Dealing with sexuality and gender identification is a big process in people's lives. I have met several people in my life who have tried to be with the opposite gender and found themselves disgusted with their decision. They were simply not straight. And why can't people seem to understand that if you were able to "choose" your sexuality, people would have chosen otherwise. So with the controversy over the bathrooms, if you have believed that you are a different gender than what you were born as, then you should use that bathroom. People are not using this as an advance towards rape. If this were the case, why are we only worried about the girls? What about the 6 year old boys that mothers send into the men's restroom because they can't use the woman's? How come we have never thought about a little boy being taken by a woman who claims to be transgender? And how about the fact that woman are constantly sexual harassed for wearing too short shorts when that is one of the only options left for a girl during the summer. There are so many factors that can be argued with this issue.
God Exists

God does exist and I wish you would answer my question "How do you think the Earth and stars were made. How do you think planets, the milky way, the galaxy was made, but if God weren't real, why do you even think there will be whispers of God on the Earth." I ask you answers for these questions. The Bible, then do you know who wrote the Bible? Why would the Bible exist when you think God doesn't exist? The natural disasters and bad things that happened in your life are because you have to get punishment. Try not to be bad just for a day and good things will come forward instead of running away from you. Why would we exist? Do you think animals, plants, crops, living things would have just popped out of nowhere? http://www.proofthatgodexists.org... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.patheos.com... http://www.strangenotions.com...
God Exists

It appears you have forfeited. Therefore, ALL arguments you have given me are FALSE. Until you can give me one that works, I win. Also, I shall refute the "Argument from Beauty" you have used. Let me explain. You have stated that the fact that babies are beautiful shows that God exists. This is actually because: a) Mothers that protect their babies get to pass on their genes, so mothers protect babies. b) Those that attack babies die, because of a). c) Therefore those who LIKE babies survive. d) Hence, you think babies are beautiful. If you can give me a better reason, then I can rebut. Otherwise, burden of proof says I must be right. IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RELIGION, IT IS FALSE.
God Exists

Here is my rebuttal: "The proof is in the bible..." I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE GALAXY! Just because I wrote that down doesn't make it true. "...you..." Humans are highly evolved primates. "...and this earth." The Earth's formation can be explained without God. [1] "Demons believe in god..." I AM SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS! Give me evidence. As for prayer: Even heard of the placebo effect? If one gives a patient a sugar pill, and tells them that the sugar pill will help their ailment, then they start to heal. Prayer is a sugar pill. You only receive results because you think you will. Just like the sugar pill, it's all in your head. Evidence: "One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments. " [2] "A review of 17 past studies of 'distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods. " [2] "In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. " [3] "Religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery." [4] [1] http://www.universetoday.com... [2] http://web.archive.org... [3] http://web.archive.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com...
God Exists

God exists. The proof is the bible, you and this earth. In proverbs chapter 12 verse 16, it says "he who hates correction is stupid. The Bible teaches that even demons believe in God - and tremble. (James 2 vs. 19) Since you affirm your belief in God, you should be better able to understand the answers to the questions below. When you pray you think that it is just a joke because you don't get replies, but, you actually do get the replies you want. You need to find them. It is hidden somewhere but you are the one who doesn't want to find it. When you pray , it is like getting phone calls to God. God answers and you have to find those answers.My dad is a minister and he has taught me all the way so I can learn. http://www.charismanews.com... http://realtruth.org...
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

My opponent seems to have misunderstood me and is confused on where my stance is.As the title says, I oppose that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race. Since the atomic bomb and its fundemental theory was invented and patented by Leo' Szilárd, what I meant was, going back in time to stop Leo' Szilárd from coming up with the idea would have adverse effects, as he is the inventor of the atomic bomb. As in my previous post, I've said that even if we manage to stop this man from coming up with his theory of chain reaction via neutrons, others would still manage to figure it out as the building blocks for the theory was already prevelant at that time."Why is that, wouldn't the mutually assured destruction principal apply to them as well?"Would you think for one second that rogue countries like North Korea would hesitate to use them on us? Absolutely not. If North Korea or Iran were the countries holding atomic power, where would we stand? They would have just threatened to use it against us in their quest to do something preposterous like form an empire by conquering weak countries one by one. If, like you said, they wouldn't nuke other countries because the mutually assured destruction principial applied to them as well, why are nations around the globe worried about them succesfully manufacturing nuclear weapons? For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology. Those efforts have been replete with periods of crisis, stalemate, and tentative progress towards denuclearization. [1] If, like you indirectly proposed with a rhetorical question, North Korea have nuclear weapons this instant, the United States and other countries around the world have them too. Would countries around the world be assured that they will not be nuked by them because other more responsible countries are also in possession of them? Economic sanctions are one powerful way to prevent an enemy nation from attacking especially if they are a country that relies heavily on trade.How do you justify this statement? It doesn't make sense to me that sanctions can stop countries from nuking one another. Take the sinking of the South Korean warship in March, in which 46 sailors died. North Korea was most like responsible for this act of war albeit they denied any playing any role in it. They are a country who is heavily sanctioned by a multitude of countries, yet they are blatantly dangerous, constantly threatening the fine thread of global peace we are hanging on. No because the bomb wouldn't be invented at all according to your original premise.Again, you are confused on where my stance is.Thank you, I had a fun debate with you. May the best debater win (although I would love to win).[1] http://www.armscontrol.org...