BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
911 inside job

I was hoping you would go first but ok I wont need luck as the simple fact is that the truth is 911 was an inside job. If anyone loses an argument pro 911 its because they havent done enough research and anyone who doesnt believe 911 was an inside sob simply hasnt looked at the evidence or chosen to ignore it. Either you ignore evidence that doesnt go along with your world view or you accept it and rethink your views. If I look at the evidence for the theory that muslim hijackers hijacked planes flew them in etc No footage of hijackers . No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911 http://www.projectcensored.org... No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911 Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc There is nothing really than a government made story no real evidence . Now for the theory that 911 was an inside job there is real hard evidence . WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives Rapid onset of collapse Sounds of explosions at ground floor " a second before the building's destruction Symmetrical "structural failure" " through the path of greatest resistance " at free-fall acceleration Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Extremely rapid onset of destruction Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Isolated explosive ejections 20"40 stories below demolition front Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: Slow onset with large visible deformations Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana.

For my final round I will sum up this debate and explain why the resolution has been negated. Burden of proof and pro’s case:Pro accepted the burden of proof in this debate. First he argued Freedom of autonomy. Mill’s quote explains when a law is just. By applying this quote we find that the status quo regarding marijuana is a just law. I also provided ample evidence referencing the CDC on the inherent and likely harms marijuana presents. Lastly I provided a link to an occurrence in Colorado that shows these harms not hypothetical, but incredibly real. This was a point that pro ultimately conceded as his second contention admits the harm posed by marijuana. Thus Pro’s first contention is soundly refuted. Next my opponent argued that Marijuana poses a Low level of harm to others. This is again shown to be false via the data I have provided. Pro’s chart does indicate that there are more harmful substances than marijuana but solidifies the harm that marijuana poses. Pro attempts to argue that because more dangerous substances are legal marijuana should also be legal. This is refuted easily as we see that those substances (alcohol and tobacco) have become an even greater threat to society legal than illegal. Thus we can conclude that legalizing marijuana will result in an increase in harm. Pro’s argument does show inconstancy in current laws. Though, this is a moot point as consistency could sway in support of legalization of marijuana or outlawing of other substances. Finally Pro claims benefits from regulation. He claimed 3 benefits. He claimed we can increase tax revenue by regulation. This is true, though it monetizes a human life for profit. This is clearly immoral. He claimed legalization would make marijuana safer. This is hard for him to prove, and if we observe tobacco and alcohol we see that these substances are still dangerous perhaps more so as they are accepted in society. He claimed that Job creation would occur is legalized. This is true, though then we allow businesses to make profits off harming society and causing death. Conclusion of debate:Pro’s case has a few points that stand.1: Legalization would result in tax revenue2: Legalization would result in job growthThis is clearly outweighed by the harm demonstrated. My contentions remain intact1: Outlawing marijuana is just2: Marijuana poses harm3: Legalization monetizes a human life. Unless readers feel it benificial to allow corperations to exploit and profit off of human suffering Pro has failed to fill his burden of proof, we see that the status quo in relation to marijuana laws is justified and should remain intact.
The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana.

Resolution: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con must simply refute my case and show it should *not* be legalized. The debates will be 4 rounds with 5k character limits. Ideally this will be kept under 4k characters though. ==Definitions== Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Recreational: Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: Cannabis ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. No Kritiks 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up may merit a loss. ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's case, Con rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.
Stuart Little would beat Remy from Ratatouille in a fight. Change my mind.

I will address your arguments individually. First: Remy's remarkable sense of smell would be rendered useless, unless it were for sniffing out a poison-dipped knife/projectile, which would be a cheap move that is below Stuart Little. With regards to Remy's puppetry, as evidenced in the 2007 film Ratatouille, Linguini is in fact capable of over-riding Remy's control, like when he chooses to follow Colette's instructions instead of allowing Remy to do his culinary experiments as usual. This implies that the hair-control has to be consensual, and in the case that Linguini is unavailable (out of the country, busy running a restaurant, making love to Colette, etc.), Remy would be forced to find another willing host in order to even stand a chance. Second: While Remy did brandish a cheese knife in self defense, I doubt he has the strength to wield it in any way that could cause Stuart Little harm. Seeing as Remy struggled to lift a decently sized omelette with a spatula, it's hard to imagine him forcefully throwing it around and hitting Staurt's smaller frame, especially if he's piloting a boat/car/plane. Third: While it is true that Stuart Little is a peaceful creature and would prefer to find nonviolent solutions when possible, he does what he has to do. In the 2002 film Stuart Little 2, during the final confrontation with Falcon, Stuart initially tries to simply evade him in his plane, not out of cowardice, but to protect Margolo (his cross-species love interest) from harms way. When it becomes evident that they can't outrun Falcon, Stuart determinedly says, "Then we'll just have to face him." He is not afraid to do what has to be done. When battling to the death, or for the honor of a loved one, Stuart would not hold back. In summation: When the stakes are high, Stuart would pour his little heart out, holding nothing back. Additionally, Remy's strength relies on him having a healthy human host wiling to be controlled by a rodent. Also, Remy had a hard time swimming, let alone staying afloat in the sewers. So if Stuart were to somehow throw Remy overboard, he could simply watch his larger, stronger, more skilled cousin drown from his luxury toy sailboat.
Stuart Little would beat Remy from Ratatouille in a fight. Change my mind.

While you seem to make a fair point about Stuart Little's abilities, it seems noteworthy that, canon to the book, Stuart's parents were both human, so really he had an unfair advantage over Remy. However, Stuart would not beat Remy in a fight. First: With the skills Remy has, he could sniff out Stuart before Stuart even got there. He can smell literally every ingredient in food, can smell where his human friend is, and also has the ability to control humans by adopting them as puppets. All he has to do to win is scurry up someone's arm and pull their hair a little, and Stuart wouldn't stand a chance. This brings us to my second point. Second: With the skill of cooking comes the skill of knife-wielding. Yes, knife-wielding rats would seem like a far-fetched thing, but these are fictional characters we're talking about, so that doesn't really matter, does it? We see in the film that Remy would pick up a cheese knife to defend himself. He would have no problem using that knife on a smaller animal than him because he is, after all, still a rat no matter how you want to look at it. Third: Stuart has no interest in hurting people. We see in the book AND the film, he does everything possible to avoid harming anyone. This also plays in to how he would no, in fact, win the fight. Also, Remy is BIGGER than Stuart, because Remy is a rat, so even without weapons, in a fur-on-fur battle, Remy would be victorious. In summation: Remy has the ability to control at least one human, Remy is the only one of them actually proved to be able to wield a knife, and Stuart would have no interest in fighting back. Remy would most certainly win in a fight when pitted against Stuart Little. Besides, what does the ability to sail a boat have to do with fighting? Sailing a toy boat would not be a useful skill in a battle with Stuart's larger, stronger, more skilled cousin.
Lucid dreaming is real

Since you did not specify what kind of "Lucid dreaming", I will. "Lucid: Expressed clearly. Easy to understand". Although there are more definitions, I'm going with that one. "Dreaming: a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep." Obviously you believe in these easy to understand and simple dreams because your mind is so simple and little, you experience these things you think are "Lucid Dreams". But in reality, you're too simple-minded to remember your dreams, so, you must be lying awake on your bed thinking of simple stuff like grass, and being so simple-minded, thinking you're dreaming.
Lucid dreaming is real

When I said you were making stuff up, I didn't mean it like that. The Lucid Dreaming you're talking about, I totally agree with it. It's just I was confused on which kind you were talking about because you didn't specify, so I did myself, but after that you re-specified. That's like making up rules while you go along. It kinda hurt my feelings. How about this. A draw, We both win.
Lucid dreaming is real

as we can all see here CON states that calling me simple minded was " it was fot the greater good" please con id like for you to explain to me on how calling me simple minded is for the greater good of science i can not just let that go and i explained lucid dreaming in round 2 in which is obvious you know nothing of the subject as if you knew enough about what Lucid dreaming was then you would understand that i am clearly not "making this up as you stated as well , i do not take claim for discovering lucid dreaming or REM sleep NOR HAVE I EVER CLAIMED TO TAKE CREDIT . i "simply explained in round 2 the best way i could what lucid dreaming is and some of the science behind it ,i feel you need to provide stronger information and reasoning as to why i am not correct . i would just like to say again that if you think i am making up lucid dreaming all of the sudden now then that is proof for me that you have no or very little knowledge on this subject and given that information debating this technical topic with you is just going to leave you confused ii believe you need to do some more research my friend i hope you study this more and can find some reasoning behind this topic ... for the name of science
Lucid dreaming is real

You didn't specify "Lucid dreaming" first. And I'm very sorry for calling you "simple-minded", but it was fot the greater good: science. Please start talking about the kind of Lucid Dreaming I specified, not whatever one you're making up all of a suden now. And remember, can we please be more civilized? You sound rather mad when this is just a simple, friendly, philosophical debate. -Love, TheWoodOre
Lucid dreaming is real

you cannot be serious ..... are you kidding me ? if you think the science behind lucid dreaming is anything near simple minded you obviously are simple minded yourself my friend to make an assumption like that i was really hoping for an intelligent debate on the issue and not to be attacked so "simple minded" by someone who obviously has never studied the science behind the brain signals in lucid dreaming by unambiguous REM sleep. i dont think that is very mature of you at all , i will go as far as calling you "simple minded" and arrogant for attempting to attack my intelligence this is obviously a troll ,or you have never opened a book on Psycophysiology ! i am sorry for you ,if you do not understand that biochemical and neurophysiological processes are responsible for the lucid dream state of consciousness. "in lucid dreaming the aminergic neurons " hence the critical faculty " is switched on, while muscle paralysis is still maintained. Only when, for some mysterious, accidental, or evolutionary reason, the self referencing faculty suddenly awakens, do we find ourselves in a lucid dream. " my simple mind is trying so hard to understand where you are coming from at attacking my intelligence ,im using my phone for this so in the next round i will give you some "sources" since im sure this next round you will attack me some more and call me simple minded ,but since im doing all this without my sources i can give you the name of a great book and author/pshycophysiologist Stephen LaBerge he is well respected by most who study the field - the book is called Lucid Dreaming the power of being aware and awake in your dreams . im sorry you had to resort to illogical tactics of attacking me so early but i feel that if you know nothing of this subject you are going to have a hard time debating this
Fox News's detrimental impact on America

I've now challenged RoyLatham to the debate. I wanted to challenge him to this resolution a couple weeks ago, but my finals schedule prevented me from doing such. We've agreed to all the specifics of the debate. Resolution: Fox News has had a negative impact on the American electorate, and the way news is intended to be reported. Definitions Fox News: Fox News Channel (FNC), also known as Fox News, is a cable news channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation [1] Negative: Characterized by the absence of distinguishing or marked qualities or features; lacking positive attributes (opposed to positive). [2] Electorate: The body of persons entitled to vote in an election. [3] News: A report of a recent event; intelligence; information. [4] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. In the case of either participant breaking any of these rules, all seven points should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) This debate will encompass aspects of Fox News that make the network harmful to the electorate being informed/educated, and harmful to the way news should be reported (fair, neutral, non-partisan, etc.). I will be affirming the resolution by demonstrating several tendencies of Fox News, including Blatant bias in favor of conservative ideology, of which includes the Republican Party of the U.S. Fox News’s harmful effect on electorate knowledge Fox News’s manipulation of several communication methods (e.g. pictures, videos) Other Fox News negative tendencies that dont’t include the above points. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.

Pennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.
The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.

I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.
The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.

Maybe instead of simply cutting the production, we greatly reduce the number of pennies manufactured each year, use a much more readily available (non-toxic) resource, and possibly offer to anyone who brings in their copper pennies (to be refined and used where it's more needed) an equivalent in U.S. currency with the new form of penny. It seems like a lot of work but I still believe all the changes to taxes and the effects on economy are much worse. With your stance on how they should be "retired because they are practically worthless" there are some problems as well. You said there is approximately 13 billion pennies produced each year which equals 130 million dollars worth of pennies. If they were retired then that would be 130 million dollars wasted on their production each year that they've been produced. So retiring them is not a very viable solution. With this I back my main two ideas of reducing the number produced and making them out of cheaper material (but still keep the old copper pennies in use).
The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.

I totally agree with your idea of changing the material because of the pollution that is caused by pennies. Pennies are made of copper, which come from zinc ores, which also contain toxic metals like lead. Although this is a good idea, I still stand by my view of cutting the production of pennies. Although it may have an affect on taxes, it saves the government a lot of money. Without producing pennies, the U.S. government will gain back about 91 million dollars because about 13 billion pennies are produced each year. Also, pennies are produced using the taxpayers money, so either way you are losing money.
The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.

I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply "stopping the production of pennies," I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.