BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hydrolic fracturing

I Kaylynn am against hydrolic fracturing because it effects our enviroment in many ways. one way it effects it is it may cause the increase in risk of global warming beacuse it effects how much water there is in the ground. another way it effects our enviroment is it decreases the water supply for not just us humans but for other organisms in our world. it also increases the earth's polution, when you fracture the gorund and start bringing gas from the ground it lets out natural gases and polutes the air. and when this is caused it creates a state where materials get into the crack and prevent it from filling in the space letting out unnatural gases that can contaminate the air. yes gas is usable but we also need to think about our earth, would we rather have a earth where everything is stable or would we rather live in a world where our air polluted and might kill us all. thank you
"Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial who came to Earth from Mars around 4000 B.C.

I have proved Yahweh is older than merely from 4,000 BC, but rather he is from 11-th to 12th as known by the literature of the time. I win regardless of whether or not Yahweh is an extraterrestrial, as long as he's not from around 4,000 BC I still win.VOTE ME.
"Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial who came to Earth from Mars around 4000 B.C.

You haven't proved anything.In this age of Photoshopping, Fake pictures, CAD, etc. , nobody automatically believes what pictures supposedly convey. The Bible states that Adam & Eve heard the lord walking in the Garden, & calling out to them.He obviously wasn't a God, had a physical body, & wasn't sitting on a stupid cloud.I wrote to "Bob" & other so-called "subgeniuses" a number of times, years ago.The term "subgenius" is definitely appropriate ! Descendants of Yetis, my ( ) ! (The word I used wasn't profanity. ) You really ought to know better than to mess with me, insult me, etc !!!
"Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial who came to Earth from Mars around 4000 B.C.

Alright fine. Let's come to a compromise and assume BoP is shared.Yahweh was not an extraterrestrial||||||||||||||||||| He was a God that lived in the heavens but he was still on earthHe holds grudges against the aliens out there so he doesn't go out at all||||||||||||||||||||||||||| "You have a mission here, to destroy all aliens!"He also hated the aliens and punished them for no good reasons||||||||||||||||||||||| "DIE ALIENS!! DIE!!"Above shows a painting depicting Yahweh shooting aliens away. Thus we can conclude he never lived outside of earth due to his hate of aliens and because such he ain't an extraterrestrial.In addition as far as we're concerned Yahweh's not that young. He lived at least in 12th to 11th century BC, because literature could not possibly been written about him had he not existed. Therefore he does not belong to the 4th century, and my opponent is wrong. [1][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial who came to Earth from Mars around 4000 B.C.

Since the guy who apparently claimed that his personal name was pronounced Yahwehwas EXTREMELY long-lived & had a POWERFUL psychic ability called telekinesis (tk) or psychokinesis (pk).& Ive never heard of any Terrestrial who's been that long-lived or had such a strong psychic ability, I postulate that he was an Extraterrestrial. Since there doesn't seem to be any record of "Yahweh" before the Genesis of the Bible & Adam & Eve,I postulate that he came here around 4000 B.C. Since Venus, one of Earth's 2 closest neighbors, apparently can't, & never could, support life as we know it,I postulate that he couldn't have come from Venus. Since scientists apparently claim that Mars could have supported life as we know it at one time, (& possibly still can),I postulate that he came from Mars.
Aviators is NOT a Bad Artist!

Greetings Pro! I accept the debate and wish you good luck. I will be attempting to argue that Aviators is a poor musician, or "bad artist." Before we continue, I would like to kindly request that Pro join me in an agreement that we will keep this debate civil in nature and focused on our debate topic. Specifically, name-calling and raising irrelevant argument points, such as the Brony concept should warrant the loss of the conduct point in the vote, for whoever initiates the unrelated point. I will be more than happy to keep this debate strictly to music, if you are. Just for clarity, I would like to post the definitions of "Bad" and "Artist" BAD - adjective 1. not good in any manner or degree. 2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible 3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient 4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use 5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty ARTIST - noun 1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. 2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, especially a painter or sculptor. 3. a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc. 4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer 5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill. Now that I have said my piece, I look forward to our main arguments in Round 2!
Aviators is NOT a Bad Artist!

I'M BAAAAAAACK!!!!!!! And Ghosts In The Code is OUT! And I'm feelin' downright angry and confident and ready to FIGHT! Why am I so confident this time? Simply that even though this the third debate in my AvITBA series, I have changed the topic from Aviators being the best artist to the most obvious one to make me win: HE'S NOT A BAD ARTIST! *chuckles* Ooohhhhhhh, YEAH, that's right, you didn't think of that because you KNEW it was obvious you wouldn't win if you had the otherwise opinion, and you hoped that I wouldn't get the idea EVER! But I did! Ever since the last debate in which I have been shot down TWICE along with my opinion and left in disgust and pride at the same time, I have secretly been planning a grand DDO-blood-filled and vengeful comeback to come back with once Ghosts In The Code came out, and now it's out. And I'm back. In red. Ready for some good DDO victory. I mean, come on, who would DARE think Aviators is a bad musician if they've listened to him? His music is so uplifting and inspiring: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Dark, hopeless, and warlike: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... (This is my comeback theme, BTW) And all in all awesome and groovy and epic!: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... And his album trailers are ABSOLUTELY pumping and action-preparing!: http://www.youtube.com... (In case these videos have left you stumped, let me explain: Aviators is an independent (no record label) alternative all-genre musician who creates music from the soul, using his imagination and emotions to form sounds that take the mind and body to a whole new place that nothing else can. Trust me when I say he is GOOD.) Oh! You dare think he is bad just because he is a Brony artist?! We'll just see about that! I will be waiting patiently for someone brave and stupid to come oppose me, knowing they will surely fail to defeat me and my awesome LOOPHOLE power! Please, none of my previous AvITBA opponents; there's no shame in starting fresh. And as Avi says in GITC: 'Cuz NOTHING TASTES SO SWEET AS REVENGE! Rules are: 3 rounds 24 hours to argue 10,000 character max Minimal sourcing (unless positively relevant) Voting style: just choose! I also ask that everyone who CAN vote does, for fairness. Tirek is waiting...Discord is waiting...Aviators will be watching with utter interest...Jason Martin is watching and waiting...Don't keep us waiting; you'll pay... *subtle evil chuckling - not too heavy, just the right balance*
The Issue about Electronics

Ill make this quick. Number 1: Complete Plagiarism. http://www.noharm.org... Number 2: There are already numerous ways to safely dispose of healthcare equipment that contains trace amounts of poisonous and hazardous materials that exist. Number 3: Healthcare electronics only have trace amounts of heavy metals in them, they arent carved out of Uranium or Lead like youre insinuating that they are. Number 4: Are you arguing that healthcare electronics should not be made with any toxic materials at all or that all hospitals should be forced to dispose of such electronics safely? I know these are really just points and reasons and not genuine arguments, but ill present genuine arguments once the Pro presents genuine arguments of his own and doesnt just copy-paste whatever he can find.
The Issue about Electronics

Electronic equipment used in health care often contains hazardous substances that can harm human health: from chlorinated plastics in cable wiring, to lead in cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, to brominated flame retardants in computers and mercury in LCD displays. Improper disposal of electronic equipment poses a significant threat to public health and the global environment. When electronic products are incinerated or dumped in a landfill, they can release heavy metals and other hazardous substances that contaminate groundwater and pollute the air. Some hazardous e-waste is being exported to developing countries that are less equipped to handle the hazardous materials " even though, in many cases this export violates international law, as well as domestic laws in the importing countries. See Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (pdf). As a large volume buyer, the health care sector has the power to shift the electronics market toward greener practices through its purchasing choices. Health Care Without Harm is collaborating with health care systems to promote healthier purchasing and disposal practices as a means to improve public health and protect the global environment.
The is No Good Evidence that the Bible was Plagarized from pagan myths

I accept this debateFor this debate, I will be arguing on three different fronts1) The Wisdom Literature of the Bible has direct parallels from other cultures2) Sargon of Akkad holds direct parallels to Moses3) YHWH/Elohim was a deity with direct parallels in other cultures and coming from earlier Semitic myths1) Wisdom Literature from other culturesThe Instruction of Amenemope specifically has direct parallels in ProverbsProverbs 22:17-18 "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, And apply thine heart to my doctrine; For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thy belly, that they may be established together upon thy lipsAm. Ch. 1 " Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue"We can discuss more of these similarities in later rounds when my opponent gives his preliminary opinion2) Sargon of Akkad and Moses There are many parallels to Moses and Sargon we can discuss. To begin just to introduce the subject, Moses is said to have been drawn out of the water, as well as Sargon.3) YHWH Elohim parallels to other deitiesI would like to my opponent's preliminary thoughts on these ideas before I write out a long response, including to this topic. Simply put, there is polytheistic thought in the OT, and it shows a progression of YHWH becoming monotheistic from other deities and cults. I would appreciate if my opponent laid out preliminary thoughts on these ideas so I can argue appropriately.
Killing animals

In a debate, we are tasked with more than stating an opinion. You must support your opinion with your own logical reasoning and in the face of rebuttals from your opponent. Opinion or not, you have chosen to disregard my arguments or even respond to me thru two rounds. Your closing also failed to support your opinion as you have not substantiated any of these claims by citing reliable sources. As such I will rest my case on your lack of compelling evidence and my arguments from round one.
Killing animals

I understand that other people have different opinions, and I am only suggesting my own. Maybe you should take a look at this: -PETA claims that they killed 90 percent of the animals that were dropped off at the Virginia Shelter. -60 percent of the people that kills animals is for fun and to make them feel powerful. -Scientists says that if we all keep doing what we're right now, we're going to run out in the future, more animals would get extincted. Those things don't need to happen. As I said earlier, the animals don't need to suffer, they are just as important as humans are.
Killing animals

I accept but I must clarify a few things. I am not a proponent of harming ANY animal without a meritable, socially acceptable reason. As such, I will not be advocating those practices in anyway. I will, however, show that consuming, hunting and testing animals for ones own benefit can be perfectly moral, well in line with the laws of nature, and has nothing to do with my wanting or not wanting to be eaten by another animal. Legally, an animal's life is not as important as a humans. Morally, some people may agree with the simplicity of that statement, however very few people would actually practice a lifestyle that did not contradict that belief. If an animal's life is equal to human then you have a moral obligation to insure you never assert your importance over their own. Did you check to make sure the state/city/neighborhood you live in did not displace/kill thousands of animals while being created? If not, then you clearly don't live by a standard of equality with any animal other than your own species. Eating animals to survive is both natural and benifical to you and the environment, without this process being repeated throughout nature, the circle of life would not exist. Being human, and understanding that it may be unpleasant to the party being consumed, does not remove us from the circle. If humans did not hunt and kill a pantheon of the animals that we share this world with we would be overrun by them and our way of life would be next to impossible. If they have to be hunted, why should they go to waste instead of being eaten or even used for some sort of testing?
Is pantheism a reasonable belief

Too bad my opponent forfeited his round. As I have repeatedly emphasized, pantheism is needless where the terms theism, deism or atheism makes things clear on one's stance of God. Everyone believes in Nature and in that sense can be a pantheist. But that shifts the scope from a belief about God to Nature, by redefining God as Nature. I have already pointed out that this is absurd since God is defined differently from Nature. If my opponent thinks his stance (which I suspect to be atheism) is reasonable we can debate that later. But while I have been gracious to point out positives in pantheism I believe it is what I started out saying: a confused position. Mayhaps, pro believes otherwise because of certain beliefs he holds distinct from atheists; but this isn't unique to him. For example, I'm a deist, but unlike classical deists, I believe God is involved in the world. Like some deists, I don't believe prayers are compulsory etc. I have stated panendeist defines me better but why muddle things when 'deist' aptly catches my stance. I hope we'll have another chance to explore Final fan's thoughts but I believe I'm closer to setting out what I intended passing across: pantheism is unreasonable.
COD Modern Warfare 2 is better than COD Black Ops

It should be interesting. I respond to my opponent's opening comments: "MW2 offers quick scoping, better weapons,and better maps. " This statement is completely opinionated and has no support to back it up. "There has been nearly triple the copies of MW2 sold than that of Black Ops. " There was no source given for this information, so it cannot be counted as true. I'd like to organize my first rebuttal into three topics: demand for the game, reviews of the game, and the overall experience of the game. First - There is a higher demand for Call of Duty: Black Ops than for Modern Warfare 2. Opening release day sales of the games are 4.7 million for Modern Warfare 2, but this number is smashed by Black Ops' whopping 5.6 million sales. [1] Black Ops was also the most pirated game of 2010, while Modern Warfare 2 was not even in the top five [2]. This, too, shows that more people want the game, and so it is better in that regard. Second - Comparisons of the games show that Black Ops tops Modern Warfare 2. In a study conducted by nowgamer. com, both games were analysed and various areas of each game were compared (such as maps, game modes, etc. ). It was concluded that: "It's clear that Treyarch is standing on the shoulders of giants here, and we're in no way putting down Infinity Ward. But the fact remains that Black Ops is the greater multiplayer experience. It favours skill, weeds out annoyances and gives everyone a level playing field. We're confident that Infinity Ward will see what Treyarch has done and give us another great multiplayer element next time. For now though, Black Ops is a shining example of how to reinvent the wheel. " [3] In a somewhat in-depth review and consideration of both games, Black Ops came out as the clear victor. Third - The experience of Black Ops is simply better than that of Modern Warfare 2. On vg247. com, the experience is described as "the deepest and most intense Call of Duty experience yet" [1]. Gamespot. com, although tied the overall rating for both at 9.0, listed the good of black ops (I'll let you read it off the website) and only one bad - a short campaign (but does not say a "bad" campaign). [4] Modern Warfare had fewer "goods" and more "bads" (a short campaign as well, but in addition the plot is confusing). [5]. Obviously, Black Ops has a superior experience in both multiplayer and singleplayer. Again, I thank my opponent for this debate and await his response. Good luck pro. [1] . http://www.vg247.com... [2] . http://www.pcgamer.com... [3] . http://www.nowgamer.com... [4] . http://www.gamespot.com... [5] . http://www.gamespot.com...
school uniforms

My opponent has made several contentions: (1) I am a student, (2) I know uniformed students - I hate them, and (3) uniformed students become so repressed they party too hard when they let loose. My opponent's arguments represent, respectively:(1) an appeal to authority. While my opponent may be a student, he is not necessarily every student, nor does his status as a student confer upon him any special abilities to discern the advantages and disadvantages of uniforms; and(2) & (3) sampling bias. My opponent has not provided carefully scrutinized statistics but rather his own selective sample of a group of uniformed hooligans. These hooligans may not be representative of the entirety of students who wear uniforms. In addition, the earlier mentioned problem with regards to the elimination of raucous parties appears to be no problem at all if the elimination of such parties preserves the safety of the students. I am sure there are some nice uniform-wearing students in the world, Con. You just need to meet them. Perhaps you could don a uniform and approach them in disguise. If they accept you, the uniforms must be working. As an aside, I went to a school that had a uniform and a school that had a dress code (elementary and high school, respectively). I don't know about all of the students, but I was an okay enough individual. Methinks uniforms might not be the cause of the issues of which you complain.
Ron Paul is a God

I will try to more organized this time, I wasn't aware people took this website so seriously. My motivation is to gain some knowledge. Therefore I would appreciate it if you would stick to the arguments instead attacking myself or my debating style. Give me some credit for taking up this debate, I don't believe too many would have. Now to go through the points you made against mine. 1. You say you stick to the definition after I had given one. Why do you then insist on me answering your first four points when 3 and 4 are related to monotheism? Especially when the definition I gave relates to the possibility of there being more than one God. 2. You say Ron Paul does not fit the criteria for supreme. I believe that this is where opinion comes into play. The definition I have for it is "2. of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc." (www.dictionary.com)To me, these are all opinions from an individual. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine what is supreme. A Fred Thompson supporter would believe Fred to be supreme. A Rudy fan would believe him to be supreme. That's just the way it goes. 3. Agreed for the most part. Evidence should be used, but they should be used to back up an opinion. 4. I apologize, polytheism would have been a better word to use, but theism isn't completely wrong, considering it can also mean polytheism or monotheism. Still, thank-you. I learned something new, which is my main motivation for being here. From now on, I will use the word polytheism to describe a belief in more than one God. 5. My only point for referring to the title was to show the lack of my ability to understand where to take the point because I couldn't tell what you were getting it. It wasn't clear whether you were talking about one god, or more than one. As for your remarks about Jesus, I agree, but they do not matter because we are talking about polytheism. IN CONCLUSSION: I believe that it may be possible to distinguish Ron Paul as a God. My main reason for this is because people believe whatever they want to it when it comes to Gods and what is supreme. I would say that Ron Paul is the supreme candidate who represents freedom, liberty, and a limited government. And because those issues are important to myself, to me Ron Paul is the God of the 2008 Presedential Candidates. TO THE AUDIENCE: Sorry if the way I wrote my responses was deterring to you. That was definently not my intent. I apologize, seeing as how I was apparently being rude.