BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

People are fairly moot as far as science is concerned. What matters is the science at hand not the mockingly silly lists of people for or against. 1) CO2 are a greenhouse gas. 2) We are releasing massive amounts of CO2. 3) From 1 and 2, we predict CO2 will cause warming. 4) There is a warming trend which fits with this prediction. Which statement is false? Which is suspect? Which is mistaken? http://www.globalwarming101.com... http://www.realclimate.org... Do you have any objections? Entire systems? No sense fighting over different facts here and there? But, you haven't pointed out anything wrong? Other than some denialists but, that's true of a number of very scientific theories. There are flat-earthers, creationists... I've heard more than a few people deny Einstein's relativity. There are some geocentists today who believe that all the stars rotate around the planet. There's some more classy junk science as well. Did you know that fingerprinting works 100% of the time? Nature is all nice and kind? There are poisonous toxins in everything and they just build up in your body? Vaccines clearly cause autism. Silver you removed with a 9-volt battery in your shed can cure cancer. There's nothing to argue based on people believing things. People believe silly things. What does the evidence say? Overwhelmingly scientists and moreover climate scientists agree that global warming is actually happening and present massive amounts of evidence to this effect. There's some quibbling about the effects of global warming, the rates, the secondary factors, but nothing about the basic core claims. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are releasing massive amounts of CO2. A greenhouse effect would cause warming. We are seeing warming in line with the expected trend. It isn't just the last few years where you could walk around in shorts in New York during certain days in January that scientists came out with the theory of global warming. We've had the basic facts since the 50s. Also, if you ever want a silver bullet: Venus. The atmosphere is mostly CO2 and the surface temp is higher than that of Mercury.
To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

Welcome to the debate Tatarize. I don't want to debate you on single pieces of research, they are meaning less when argued on a one by on basis. Again I don't dispute nor do I want to dispute data true or false. Like I said any single piece of data or research is meaningless on its own. What I am getting at is the complete exclusion of and silencing of peer reviewed scientists who have studied all the available data not just bits and pieces that fit some computer modal to make it work. I run a C.N.C. machine and from the experience I have with computers they never do what you don't tell them to do, only what you tell them to do. But I digress sorry I got off topic. You are trying to convince me that what I see hear and read in all the major news media is all true. The first thing you did is automatically dismiss my first piece of evidence and call it junk science, Hey Patrick so much for the credibility of peer review evidence, I tried. Now I really don't now what to believe anymore. Anyway here's my second piece of "PEER REVIEWED JUNK SCIENCE" evidence copy and paste this: "Digital Journal - 17200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming" This will take you to the link. The first page on this link has some very disparaging things to say about the IPCC which is a source used by Patrick in our last debate. If you scroll down to the very bottom of that page you will find another link above a big orange box that says "VOTE IT UP" the link is: oism.org I tried to separate the two links but if you type oism.org you will have to search their whole site to find the evidence I want you to read. So go to the first link to get to the second and you won't waste any time searching The second link is a petition from 17,200 Scientists who dispute what is being told to me by you, the news media, politicians and environmental activists. Fortunately there is a complete list provided for you of every single scientists name on that petition. I'll give you extra time to call them all and ask about their credentials and why they dispute that global warming is caused by man. This petition has never been nor will it ever be reported by all the major news outlets. As an added bonus feature it also has a peer reviewed report you can look at that explains why 17200 scientists signed this petition It's chalked full of juicy data to help support my claim and theirs
Che Guevara is the most influential person of the 20th century

"while einstein was probably the most intelligent man of all time he has not really influenced people who have not got involved in the occupation of science."This simply isn't true. Einstein influenced the very foundation upon scientific education in schools. E=MC^2 could be considered to be one of the most well-known equations in today's society. "Without the fact described by this equation we wouldn't be around since the energy we obtain from the Sun is generated by converting mass to energy in the process of nuclear fusion. "[1]I would like to bring in further examples of the people that my own opponent has mentioned, such as Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. All of these men were huge influences in the 20th century. Nelson Mandela worked to end apartheid in South Africa and became a larger figurehead in that struggle than Che. Quite honestly, I was completely unaware that Che had fought against apartheid in any country, especially that of Angola. Perhaps that's my own ignorance though.Vladimir Lenin. This man is perhaps one of the most influential people upon history. Now, I'm not saying what he did was good nor bad, I am looking at it from a viewpoint that it was, indeed, incredibly influential. Vladimir Lenin brought about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. His viewpoints paired with the already existing Marxism have birthed another viewpoint that makes up our modern take on communism. At the beginning of the 20th century, when Russia began war with Japan, and economic strain began to cause the citizens to want political reform, Lenin stood there at the ready willing to lead Russia into this new form of government. To make this an even more impacting, statement, everything that Che stood for in his Cuban Revolution was formed in Lenin's theologies. The Lenin-Marxism ideas that people have come to know as communism in the current day and age are the ideas that Che fought for in Cuba. Lenin influenced Che to take his stand. Lenin influenced history by bringing about a revolution that seemed improbable. Lenin was the influence of the time.Sources:[1]http://www.math.utah.edu...
Che Guevara is the most influential person of the 20th century

there is an arguement for gandhi but i most certainly think there are faults with your choices. 1.while gandhi did stage a peaceful revoulution it was no way as succesful as cubas.he did succed in removing the british from india,but the aftermath of india winning its independence was fairly catastrophic.the civil war between hindu"s and muslims was the worst thing to happen to india.an armed rebellion would of meant men of the two religions would of fought side by side and after they won independence im sure the men would have enough respect for each other to come to an agreement over territory. 2.while FDR was one of americas best presidents,his contributions to the world were no way near as big as che's. to be honest he did not really have a choice but to get involved in world war 2,I mean america had to defend themselves.also he didnt exactly do wonders for the usa's economy(he introduced deficit spending which may have prolonged the great depression). 3.while einstein was probably the most intelligent man of all time he has not really influenced people who have not got involved in the occupation of science. also i would argue that more people have gotten involved in politics because of men such as nelson mandelal,JFK,lenin etc. than people have got involved in science because of einstein. while i certaintly think gandhi is one of the most remarkable men of all time,che has influenced more people worldwide and to be honest,a revoulution has not involved deaths or fighting has never been entirely succesful. (i apologize for not giving my information sources in round 1.all my facts on che guevara are from john lee andersons biography "Che Guevara,a revoulutionary life)
Che Guevara is the most influential person of the 20th century

My goal in this debate shall only be to show that there were others in the 20th century that may be considered more influential than that of Che Guevera. According to Time Magazine's "Most Important People of the Century" list, Che Guevera was not the most influential. In fact, the most influential people noted by the magazine were Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These three will be the ones that I shall focus upon in my opening arguments. Let us start with the poster child of peaceful protests: Mahatma Gandhi. He was a man who gave everything for his country. He gave everything short of his life for the nation of India and he helped lead it to independence from Great Britain during the 20th century through peaceful protests. While Che resorted to guns and violence to free his Cuban brothers and provided military training to those in the Congo, Gandhi brought together a nation to protest against the tyranny of another country without picking up a weapon. He fasted and was imprisoned on many, many occasions but he never gave in. Now, we shall move to the man that pulled America up by its bootstraps and sent it packing in the right direction after hitting rock bottom: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR, as he is commonly referred to, was among one of the nation's greatest presidents as he sat in office for twelve years trying to pull the U. S out from the Great Depression. Utilizing all of his powers as president, FDR became the ideal president simply by showing his care for the people and for using his influence to nurse a country back to health. He also moved the U. S into involvement with World War II. Had it not been for the foreign aid that we provided during the war under FDR's guidance, not only would the U. S have faced the economic depression even longer, but the world as we know it may be changed by the simple course of how WWII could have gone. FDR not only influenced his own country during hard times but he influenced history by deciding to get involved in World War II. Finally, we shall wrap it up with the man that was regarded as the most influential person of the 20th century by Time Magazine: Albert Einstein. A German-born theoretical physicist, Einstein has become the Aristotle of our day in his achievements through science and physics. He is single-handedly responsible for many of the scientific acknowledgements that we have today. He developed the special theory of relativity, the mass-energy equivalence formula (E = MC^2), the general theory of relativity, and he came to endorse and help research the mechanics behind the atomic bomb. Einstein not only changed the way we think about the world but he changed the way in which we perceive the world and warfare. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Sources: . http://content.time.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Che Guevara is the most influential person of the 20th century

Che Guevara is the most influential person of the 20th century. for a start everything this man did was for other peoples best interests. he was born in to a wealthy family who were never a witness to poverty. so for a young man like this,attemting to remove povery from latin america was remarkable. the most common critisisms of che were that 1.he was a racist 2.he executed thousands of innocent people first it is false to say he was a racist.this theory comes from the fact that in his motorcycle diaries he said the black people he encoutered in a pairticular village "were lazy and unwilling to work".that is in no way intended to be a racist remark and to be honest their is not one white person in the world who has never made a racist remark. also you cannot ignore the fact that he trained black nationalists in congo and fought alongside rebels who were fighting apartheid in angola.(also he was a personal friend of malcom x) to call a man a racist is one thing,but to claim that he executed thousands of civilians is just a crazy statment. the official number of documented victims under che guevara was between 190 and 200 according to official reports in cuba,and also these people were convicted of serious crimes such as murder or multiple rape charges. and remember it was castro who executed multiple political prisoners and these executions were ordered after che left cuba. che has become the worldwide symbol for revoulution against higher powers. while mandela,marthin luther king etc.have both ensured that this generation of people are unaware of racial segregation, Ernesto Guevara Lynch was prepared to die so that in the future the world be united and every person of every race will have an equal oppurtunity to succeed.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

Taken from http://churchandstate.org.uk... Justification for inequality A simple and honest study of our world"s theocracies (and countries such as America where those issues are being debated) reveals how our holy texts are used to discriminate against women, LGBTs, and foreigners. Our top three world religions" texts are full of discrimination against these groups. In fact, it is openly used as justification for that discrimination. Religion facilitates erroneous rationalization of the attempts to remove basic rights from others. It prevents people from living in peace as a community and within their own lives. It forces entire groups of people to work tirelessly to create and preserve rights that should be available to them already. Many of our religions treat women as subhuman property rather than the part of the human species that gives life to every one of us " a position that deserves respect. Many of our world"s countries have so drastically restricted the rights of women that they are not allowed to attend school to earn an education, drive a car, be seen in public without a male family member, hold a career, or even speak their own thoughts. In each instance where this gender based bigotry is enforced, it is always attached to a religiously based belief system. Religion also treats the LGBT community with disdain, even to the point where some countries prescribe death as a punishment for not following that religion"s definition of what sex should look like. The problem with this is that homosexuality can be found in many species, not just amongst humanity. Anyone who has done their research knows this. Unfortunately, religion has not caught up to this reality. Although homosexuality has existed for millennia, religion still persists in fighting what comes natural to much of nature. Is it a god that gave us permission to interrogate and murder people based on sexual orientation, or is it the people who wrote our religious texts and simply did not understand or agree with that part of nature? Sadly, our religious texts have been used to discriminate against a vast assortment of people, including, tribes, minorities and foreigners. People outside of a religion"s belief structure or cultural background have been tortured, enslaved and stripped of their human rights " all in the name of a god and the religion that god represents. Religion gives followers justification for treating others who are not like them in inhumane ways. It enables our world to perpetuate the cycles of hatred towards others and justify our efforts in restricting the happiness of our fellow human beings. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

"It is so painfully obvious that you made up things as you went along. I do not take to kindly to that. Not ever. Bye." Made up things as I went along? I am Catholic, with all due respect, I know more about my religion than you do. Anywho, I ask that you provide a valid arguement to my counter-claim in round two of our debate, so we may respectfully continue this in round four, thank you. Back to you.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

The fact that you are a 15 year old punk kid and clearly unedumacated, still stuck in high school with a high school edumacation and has to invent excuses and doesn't know what he is squawking about shows that he is weak and inferior. Now you reread, or read it in which you clearly haven't read what I stated in RD1's first paragraph. Oh and btw, I'm not here to please a spotted hair testicle remover such as yourself. And if you don't like it, leave. I---don't---care. Especially when you have to invent excuses and or flat out lie and you know it, in order for himself to remain afloat in the booed prized of nothingness. It is so painfully obvious that you made up things as you went along. I do not take to kindly to that. Not ever. Bye.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

"I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t. Who knows?" The fact that you are relying on insulting me just proves your argument to be weaker and inferior. I will not rely on insulting you as I know everything you have cited you have taken at face value, which means everything you have cited is completely false. The word of God is never supposed to be taken at face value, you can claim what I just said as false but please remember who the catholic is here. "*Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." *Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." *2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" *Psalm 19:7 "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." In other words god"s word is PERFECT. It cannot be changed by anyone or anything. The laws stand TODAY just as they did back whenever. And no excuse from you can hold up - well that is IF you believe in your god who hates children." The word of God is perfect, however you fail to realize that the Catholic religion is lead by the Pope who is the representation of God on Earth. If the Pope and his "council" say that God's opinion has changed, it has. That is how the Catholic faith works. And even though I am fifteen, I am maintaining a level of respect and maturity in this debate. I ask you to do the same and refrain from insulting me or my faith.
Game x Game

In summary, the objective comparison of the two games shows that HL2 is superior. Not only was this recognized by the review industry but also I have shown that HL2 has a clear edge in Presentation, Graphics and Sound; while Gameplay and Lasting Appeal can be muddled with the Pro's subjective interpretations, the Pro has dropped several key arguments. The most important of which is the immersion of the gamer and their connection to the video game, in which a compelling storyline, superior graphics, evocative music and seamless combat systems are key. The choice is clear, the Pro is controlling this debate. While my opponent has interpreted that as aggressiveness towards his game of choice, I have engaged with this comparison and drawn clear lines of division between these two games. He has not and instead seems to change his mind half-way through the debate over if there is a superior game of the two. Thanks for the debate Riferrari.
Game x Game

"...GTA:SA and HL2 are completely different games with completely different engines."So then there's no basis to compare games of different styles with different engines? This is obviously false and at the point where we accept this statement this debate becomes pointless because we can't compare games at all. Ratings still matter and show HL2 is better. In addition, the dropped argument about awards recieved (and should have been recieved) still demonstrates HL2's superiority.1. Presentation: Different experiences doesn't make a game, nor does it make a story. At the end of the day, GTA:SA is equvalent to a cheap thriller novel while HL2 is akin to To Kill a Mocking Bird or Frankenstein. This supplements my classics arguments.2. Graphics: Okay now we're getting back into subjective evaluations, which I find untrue. Consider the landscape screenshots below; not only is the level of detail superior but the use of light and the sun are much more effective in HL2. 3. Sound: I doubt we're going anywhere with this argument, lets just leave it as is.4. Gameplay: On the subjective level of what the gamer wants, well, everyone has their own tastes. But like I said, the lack of change in the world is a severe detriment to the immersion of the game. With all of the lightposts I hit in GTA:SA while driving, the cities should have gone bankrupt. The Pro is widening this debate to other games, however I'd remind you that we're talking about GTA:SA. The game doesn't let you live in another world like HL2 does, it lets you wreck stuff that you can't outside your front door. The world is out there, not in your TV screen. Also, the open world feature of HL3 is both outside of the scope of this debate and complete heresay; Valve hasn't made any official announcements yet.I'd offer in addition that HL2 includes and does better several things that GTA:SA does not; vehicular combat, puzzle solving, the Gravity Gun and controlling Ant-Lions to break into a prison. Fun? Hell yes. And much better done than GTA:SA's "activities".5. Lasting Appeal: "Lasting appeal is the judgement of the amount of modes and things to do in the game and how much time they will last, while gameplay, on the other hand, will judge the quality of these things." My opponent has it backwards and is misconstruing the interpretation of this category to suit his argument. Lasting appeal is the quality of the game holistically and how it is recieved by the audience. Gameplay is the judgement of modes of play and specifically the quality of these modes. Also, as stated earlier, the quality of the soryline contributes to the Lasting Appeal of a game, GTA:SA has a poor storyline and HL2's falls under the category of "classic".In summary, when it comes down to comparing these games not only does the video game review industry agree with the Con but the superiority of HL2 in the five categories discussed demonstrates these reasons. In evaluating a game objectively HL2 is better.