BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

I think my opponent is confused. Whenever he says that "economic development is going to kill us all", he's specifically advocating against the think he's supposed to be advocating for. But to respond to the only (unwarranted, asserted) claim that he makes, which was "Developing countries need all the cash they can get and exploiting their resources in any way they can will satisfy whatever Immediate agenda they have."This would be very hard to prove because developing countries don't even get the profit from the materials they extract. They're extracting materials for other, developed nations which just leaves them with the check, not the payday. Katz and Oechsli[1]: “Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preserving … the … rain forest, are spread out … across the entire human race, while the costs … are borne … by … local human populations. Development of the rain forest … provides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding that … Third World countries limit development … violates basic … notions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for the … world’s … use of natural resources.” So, this means that if the developing countries want to see any kind of benefit at all, they'd be better off investing in more environmentally friendly policies (i.e. deep ecology) which not only benefits them, but the rest of the world as well.And, my opponent doesn't really respond to anything that I said in my case, so extend it out as unrefuted. [1] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
taxes

For the purposes of this debate, and using my opponent's own opening argument, I would like to define a "tax" or "taxes" as "money that is automatically deducted from one's paycheck before receipt of said paycheck, for usage in government programs". I do not believe these two different taxes should be combined, because it would serve no benefit to the country or its citizens, and would have disadvantages. Sales taxes are charged to offset the price of producing and transporting goods, and are also charged on some services as well. Taxes taken out of paychecks are proportional to a person's income, and are used to pay for helpful government programs such as libraries, schools, trash/sanitation, public transportation and law enforcement, and other services that most Americans use. There is no way to determine a flat rate tax that combines the two completely different taxes on sales and payroll, because everyone earns different wages, and the transportation and production of goods costs every state differently. Furthermore, it would cost the US a significant amount of time and money to implement a new tax system. Secondly, I believe Americans should pay taxes according to their income, and do not believe that hardworking citizens should be taxed as much as the rich. Wealthy Americans have less need of public services than average Americans, but still use public services, thereby diverting resources away from needier people and driving up the cost of continuing public services. As such, the government has an ethical responsibility to tax wealthy Americans more. I do not believe that we need to get the officials out of office now. Some American officials are very good at their jobs, and there is a lot of evidence to prove this. There are American officials that are not "blowing" money, and are in fact spending wisely and making efficient use of our tax dollars. Furthermore, there are far too many American officials to make a sweeping declaration that applies to all of them. The statement that "younger generations are not going to see social sucrity (sic)" is false, as every tax-paying American pays money to the OASDI federal program, and is guaranteed to receive money from Social Security between the ages of 62-67 until the end of their life. If an American citizen has a Social Security number, participates in payroll taxes, and reaches retirement age, they will receive Social Security. "Younger generations" will not have to "pay off" "a bill" that is being mounted by the current generation of American taxpayers, and as of current US law, no future generations will be required to use any received Social Security monies to pay any state bills.
taxes

I fell that the taxes the rich and wealth goverment officals take from us shouldnt be takein out in our cheacks and then in store purches or even the house we buy and for the schooling i am for a flat taxes this will inscure that good hard working citzens get taxed just as much as the rich. i also think that we need to get the officals outta office now they are just takeing this money and blowing it there is no reason we should pay is much as we do when in most cases the younger gentrations are not going to see social sucrity and we are just makeing a bill that they are going to have to pay off.
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com...10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.Good luck.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. Yes. 9. The arithmetical symbol 0 or denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity That was not a yes/no question; therefore, my opponent only asked me nine yes/no questions in Round 1; therefore, my opponent broke Rule #1; therefore, my opponent loses by Rule #11. 10. No.
I will not contradict myself.

I have been doing a lot of serious debates lately, so it is time to give the serious debates a rest.1. Do you believe in God?2. Have you ever mooted before?3. Do you like to sing?4. Have you ever sung?5. Are you positive we are having this debate?6. Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend?7. Can we possibly know anything? 8. Do you use 100% of your brain?9. What is the definition of "Zero"?10. Have you ever mugged someone?Thank you. Good luck!
Medical Marijuana

Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.
Reality is the only true answer to everything not divine belief

I have found it very interesting that the human mind has accepted silly myths and old stories to answer the most basic questions that we ask as kids. This argument will focus primarily on the Christian belief simply because I was brought up a Christian and am mostly familiar with Christianity. There are thousands of other belief systems full of myth that would suffice but I'm going with Christianity. We asked things like Why do bad things happen? Who was the first person? What is a miracle? What are things made of? What is a rainbow? When I ask someone that believes in divine intervention they answer these questions using blind faith as the only foundation for their assertions. Is it not silly to say that bad things happen because an angel consumed with pride fell from Heaven and tempted sin rendering gods perfect creation imperfect? Or, a slow lizard was carrying the good news to humans but a faster lizard was carrying the bad news and that is what caused bad things to begin happening. The first person on Earth was Adam. Miracles are sent from god and prove he is real. I don't believe divine intervention exists or any god(s) whatsoever. I believe that reality is the only true answer to anything really. In order to assert something as truth one must prove or backup the claim with substance otherwise it should be accepted is either a lie or misunderstanding on the person assertings part. Contention # 1 - Nothing happens due to divine intervention because it refutes natural laws. Nothing that has or will happen cannot be explained via natural laws. Contention # 2 - In order to answer a question truthfully one must first accept and understand reality and debunk myths. Contention # 3 - Reality is using your five senses, an instrument to expand your senses (I. e telescope), and scientific modeling. Divine intervention cannot explain anything whatsoever. Contention # 4 - If you answer anything without accepting reality as the basis you are committing a logical fallacy and essentially are telling a "misguided truth". Contention # 5 - If in order to believe something you must have faith, that itself is good reason to doubt it. In order for con to receive any votes they should first define how questions, any question can be answered using divine or faith without committing logical fallacies. It is not acceptable to redefine the argument into a "spiritual realm" as that itself requires dismissing reality.
Animals can possibly display homosexual behavior

So I remember when I would go to my friends house and he had this dog. He later brought another dog. Both were males. One in particular would always try to have sex with the other evident by the position of doggie style and the little pink thingie. Funny thing is the one on the bottom would always just sit there and just take it. conclusion, gay doggies.gay animal activity is evident in findings.There is this one study where certain genes were deleted from mice and those mice rejected the opposite sex and invited the same sex. "Female mice 'can be turned lesbian by deleting gene' Female mice can be turned "lesbian" by deleting a single gene at embryo stage, scientists have discovered".....http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Around 2,300 years ago, Aristotle had already described the remarkable behaviour of a group of hyenas: males flirting with males, females pleasuring females. But the idea of gay marriage in the animal kingdom never really fitted into the scientists' world view, and so was all too often ignored.""Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."http://gaylife.about.com..."Scientists at California’s Monterrey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and the University of Rhode Island recently reported on the same-sex mating habits of Octopoteuthis deletron, a deep-sea squid that indiscriminately shoots sperm packets onto both male and female squids passing by." "O. deletron isn’t alone in its same-sex sexual behavior. In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that “many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.” Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species. Read on for some fascinating examples." http://www.popsci.com... conclusion of this point--obviously humans have observed homosexual behavior in animals, So animals can possibly display homosexual be behavior. Lastly I will provide some pictures of animals engaging in homosexual activity and I will describe how we know the animals are the same sex. http://www.kontraband.com... I believe these are moose's and female moose's don't have huge antlers like these two do. So both of these are males. http://www.kontraband.com... Only male lions grow manes. So both of these are males. http://www.kontraband.com... Obviously we see two antlers and a buck and there having a threesome. http://www.kontraband.com... This one is just too funny....lol http://www.environmentteam.com... This last one is a compilation of gay activity by animals.
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

Most Christians don't say that because they know you must believe in atonement and resurrection or otherwise, how will you receive forgiveness and let God into your life? My four points are simply paraphrases of what the Bible teaches with verses such as the ones you quoted, thus i don't contradict the Bible. God has given us the only way to salvation clearly defined in Scriptures once we study it for ourselves.
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

so you are basically adding a number 4 then? the resurrection. as for atonement, see christus victor and penal substitution. most christians dont say you have to believe one or the other. what's your magical sollution? you missed the point about the 'believe in your heart and rose from the dead stuff'. the bible says if you do that, you will be saved. but you have this magical list of four things that must be believed. do you contradict the bible? that your three points are biblical doesnt answer this situatin that needs reconciled. you just seem to spout the big things that pop out at you and as far as i can see are missing the point about how the vague versus too listy problem is always going to be there. i see there being no solution.... all we can say is it all depends and we aren't God and so we can't know.
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

If you don't believe in the resurrection, that is the equivalent of rejecting his victory over death and sin, thus demonstrating you never really believed in the first place. Atonement is required for your sin to be purged, what examples are there for different views on atonement? If the Bible says believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, he rose from the dead, and that he came to save people of their sins as the Bible says, my 3 points are therefore biblical. I get all this stuff from studying the Bible and meditating on acting upon the Gospel vs. simply teaching/explaining different beliefs on it.
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

so here it is then the final decree for all of mankind in a debate post con? what if you believe 1 2 and 3, except you had reason to doubt the resurretion of Jesus? that that mean you're condemned? and you mention in a point after your list, being cleansed by atonement. is this required to be believed in, too, or is it something that doesn't have to be in the list? and what if people have varying view of the atonement? what if the person believes in their heart that Jesus is lord, and that he rose from the dead? the bible say they will be saved. but what if they don't believe all of your three points? does that mean they won't be? is the bible wrong, and you right? how are you so sure of yourself, and where are you getting all this stuff?
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

Based on the context of the words used and the requirements to be saved, it is only logical to conclude that: 1. God exists 2. You must put your trust in him, that Jesus came, died, and rose again 3. Repent or turn away from your sins It is not a matter of belief or doctrine as much as it matters to acknowledge Jesus as Lord of your life, God's existence, and the need to repent and be cleansed of your sins through his atonement. A convert should receive instructions on what to do in his/her life rather than taught a set of doctrine.
what is required to be belived for salvation is unclear, for christians

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. so what is it? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. so what's the magical formula?
Something new...

http://www.youtube.com... This person is trying to show the flawed reasoning of people who try to say that evolution is a statistical impossibility. He does a very good job of that. My question would be, very simply, where did the "salt" come from. If life started out a some random material and then evolved into what we are today, where did the random material come from? What was the random material? Evolution, though it claims to be absolutely scientific cannot answer these questions. Is it not much more logical, and does it not fill in more gaps to believe that there is an all-powerful GOD who created everything according to His design? Consider this. We do not and have not seen new animals due to evolution. If evolution were true then it would be perfectly normal to see new animals that had evolved very often. Even if these changes were slight we should still be seeing them. If christianity is true then we should not be seeing new creatures everyday because GOD already finished creating the universe. So my conclusion is that if your going to observe evidence, then there is more evidence for creationism.
iOS 7 is better than Android Kit Kat

First of all, iOS 7 has the best consumer mobile experience rating, with a score of 83.25 while android only has a score of 57.25. This study was done by Pheiffer Reprorts (http://www.pfeifferreport.com...) in 2013. On iOS 7 (providing it is on a new enough device) is much, much faster with nicer transitions than any android, new or old. As well as that, although iOS does not run on any external devices like android, it does not stutter but iOS truly does feel smooth. Anyone who switches, regret it soon. I have coded Objective C and other C-based languages, they are not that hard, as I personally found it harder to code in ja vascript. I do not see any universe where android is better, I only see the switching reason that is that they have a bigger screen. That's it.
iOS 7 is better than Android Kit Kat

While iOS 7 may be a nice operating system, Android Kit Kat is a supior all around alternative. KitKat works on more devices than iOS 7. Spec per spec, Kit Kat runs on more powerful phones and tablets compaired to iOS 7, and KitKat works right out of the box with a similar amount of set up as iOS 7. Android 4.4 Kit Kat has a more open back end compaired to iOS 7 as it is linux based (compaired to iOS being based on a heavilly modified BSD/Unix Shell). This means that users can take full advantage of the additional power in devices such as Samsung's Galaxy S5 and Note 3, HTC's One M8, and Google's Nexus 5. KitKat runs on a wider variety of devices than iOS as Google lets OEM's use it for free or with minimul licenseing requirements. Because KitKat is Android, it can run on multipule types of devices and isn't limited to phones and tablets. Kit Kat can power small ARM based computers, TV set top boxes, watches, augmented reality glasses (Google Glass is powered by Android), and various home appliances such as connected dryers and refridgorators. From a devlopment standpoint, Android uses Java over Objective C for the foundation of it's applications which can be argued either way, though how Android runs applications is supior to iOS as each application runs as a single instance much like web pages in Chrome do. This my transfer into a needing RAM, though it also means an unresponsive applications won't brick your entire phone. Android Runtime, or ART, was introduced with KitKat. ART allows applications to run more nativily on the various types of hardware and reduced RAM ussage and fragmentation while providing a smoother user experance.You'll need to use data to back up your statements that iOS is the number one mobile operating system as well as clearify by what you mean by "switchover rate". Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...(operating_system)https://developer.android.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...developer.apple.com/ios7