BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
government should intervene more with alternative fuel

First off, if you want to talk statistics, you should provide some. Using the number 22 in your speech does not justify statistics. Furthermore, I'm not using 'abstractions' I am using common sense! Next, I answered your argumentation on the poor stating that biodiesel would exacerbate the problem as would ethanol. Furthermore, solar power is not the only form of alternative energy. And, you concede so much stuff and don't even attempt to answer Adam Smith. Smith's idea were the foundation for modern day economy so if you are going to even bring up how your method solves best for the economy, you at the least have to answer back the Adam Smith argument stating that the government should be limited when it comes to the economy. And, you don't answer my argumentation about how the government has too close of ties to organizations such as OPEC, at the point where you concede that, then you have overlooked an essential point of analysis that will cause further hindrances to your arguments because I have automatically answered back all of your arguments. Supply and demand will eventually check back the '$12' a gallon argument because there will be a push by the common folk for a new form of energy because I know a lot of people who will quit purchasing gas if it surpasses $4 a gallon. In reality, you look at it in a dismal sort of perspective where the poor and middle class are either incompetent or unable to do anything when that is just not the case. Thanks, Matt
government should intervene more with alternative fuel

So, thank you! I will begin my argumentation by referencing one of the most political and economic minds of all times. Adam Smith. His ideas were the basis for the world economy and the United States' government. He claimed that a government has 3 duties to its people, and no more. 1) Public Institutions 2) Domestic Security 3) Protection from foreign invasion Alternative energy does not fall under any of these three duties that the government holds and should therefore the government shoud not act. Next, you advocate that the market cannot take care of the 'problem' (I will talk about this 'problem' later on. ) itself. You only contention for this is that biodiesel is an effective energy source. There is a major problem with this though. BIODIESEL REQUIRES MORE CHEMICAL ENERGY TO MAKE THAN IT CAN PRODUCE MAKING IT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ITS CAUSE. But you go on further to note that biodiesel is too expensive and is the only reason why it isn't being used. I answer this back with two responses. Biodiesel is cheaper than regular diesel fuel (which is the only thing that biodiesel replaces) meaning that money isn't the problem so that automatically deteriorates your argumentation. But furthermore, biodiesel is ineffective, it clogs up cars, and it takes away from agriculture raising the price of food which would effect the poor and the economy even more. Next with your 'conventioanl wisdom' aruments, they have no basis and there is no analysis on how this 'wisdom' even exists. It does not exist because the rich would not invest money in a risky area. It is the middle class that would make this technological advancement simply for the emperical support that comes along with it. It was the middle class that lead the textile, industrial, and technological advancements of the past, therefore it should be left to these people to do it again. And, you advocate that the government would be the best operative to change the current status quo of oil consumption to alternative fuels, ummmmm. .. .. the government has strong ties to OPEC and other oil agencies that make them the worst possible advocacy group. No matter how much they call for a change in the current energy 'crisis' they never will make this change. This is reason enough to deny the use of the USFG. Next, LEAVE IT UP TO THE MARKET! Smith also created the concept of the 'invisible hand' that drives prices of goods down and creates the highest amount of techonological innovations. A free market also weeds out the bad ideas and further iterates the good ones because people look to what works and buy it. Basic consumer/producer relationship. This is the only way that we would ever be able to find the best source of energy. Finally, you make the assumption that we should divest away from oil and to alternative energy sources. I ask you why? Oil provides more CO2 for plants increasing crop production around the world, it has shown no signs of 'global warming'. We have not seen the effects of burning oil and we will not see them in the future. Thank you! Matt
Creationism should not be taught in schools

My argument is that in a science class in secondary and high school education Darwin's natural selection should be taught in schools across the world without any religious argument being in opposition to it. It is proven through sound scientific study that over millions of years species' have slowly evolved to their surroundings and have diversified. This is backed up by a huge fossil record and gene studies of current species'. In my argument I focus primarily on the United States but also as a broader principle. In the states of Texas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards "students critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." I believe this is fundamentally wrong as it teaches children to doubt scientific fact and also to take spiritual beliefs AS scientific fact. This is unhealthy for society and seems very backward to revert to primitive human beliefs. I compare it to teaching flat earth as opposition to round earth 'theory'. I argue that any reference to 'Intelligent Design' or 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' should be removed from education guidelines and that natural selection should be unopposed as scientific fact.
Stricter Gun Control in America

Please cite your studies :) Obviously, some background checks are required and which we do have today. However, it IS safer to have guns in people's home. I just stated my ENTIRE argument saying that. My source backs this up. Also, it is not only behind third world countries. Like I showed you, United Kingdom has far more violent crimes than America. And it doesn't matter how many knives than guns... why does that make any difference. And by the way, how does the fact there are more knives than guns show anything? Obviously, there are more knives in the world. But you forget to mention nearly all these knives are either combat knives in self defense or cooking knives. It is and will forever be debatable as long as there are two different opinions.
Stricter Gun Control in America

I showed that some gun control is good, namely background check. I can also cite studies that show violence is reduce w checks, and other limitations on guns. see previous debates by me, or I can cite them if you want. your assertion that we should have no limitations then, is baseless, if you want to reduce violence. also, if a person has a gun, even if justmany many times more likely to use it for a crime.... that's why its considered safer for most people to not have guns at all in their home. they are more likely to be the worse fo it in terms of violene\ce. I can cite this study too if you want America might not be the worst in the world in violence, but it's only behind third world roque countries. compared to its economic counterparts, America is worst. knives might be more dangerous sometimes, but only cause they are so prevalent. you might be a hundred times more likely to be stabbed than shot, but there's thousands more knives than guns. I have a feeling you will contest my assertions and will need to cite my studies. I would be happy to if you requie it. and no one has refuted the evidence when I posted it. it's really not debateable.
Stricter Gun Control in America

I am not sure if you are completely against or for stricter gun control or no guns at all but I will proceed to state my arguments. Today we look at media and stare in horror as gun murders are in the headlines around the world yet we fail to realize how many times guns are actually used to HELP other people. "Guns are used 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!" 3/5 Polled Felons wont mess with an armed victim. 200,000 women protect themselves with a gun ever year Gun ownership rate in America - 88.8 (1st place) Homicide rate in America - 4.8 (103rd place) The United Kingdom has no gun laws, yet there are 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 and there are only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 in America. Kitchen knives are the common weapon of choice. Kennesaw Georgia passed a law stating required ownership of a gun in ever household. Burglary rates 89%. More statistics at my source: http://americangunfacts.com... Overall, I would like to say, because of the media blowing up news on gun homicides and massacres, there is somewhat of a public ignorance on the benefits of gun ownership. Contrary to popular belief, guns are HELPFUL and PROTECT innocents more than you think. Thank you.
Stricter Gun Control in America

at least have more background checks. as of now forty percent of all gun sales are done legally, and without a check. around eight in ten americans support it. you could be the worst criminal in the world, and buy a gun, legally. why allow access to criminals and those who are mental, access that is so easy. are you trying to say checks won't prevent even one person from getting a gun who isn't o shouldn't have one? if even a few people are blocked, we should have checks. not everyone will automatically go to the black market to get a gun. most criminals aren't black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. most are just people who shouldn't have a gun, and many wont have one if they are not legally allowed to, and especially if there are laws that prevent them from having them. sure many will do it all illegally, but not all. and this will surely reduce murder and crime etc if they don't have a gun at a time theyd commit a crime. why not at least try universal checks? at worst it's a mere inconvenience. in reality and almost surely at best it will save lives and reduce crime.
more guns means more overall homicides

all i stated is the correlative. more guns, more homicide. correlation isn't causation but i never said it did. con has argued something i didn't even state. but if i were to argue causation it would make more sense..... because a gun is more a danger than no gun, imagine all the more people with guns. it just exacerbates the issue, so guns are causative. but anyways i didn't need to argue that all i said is the more you have guns the more you have homicide.
more guns means more overall homicides

"Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home" [1]. Correlation does not mean causation. There may be reverse causality and confounding factors. Some people might think that having a gun in the home causes death from a homicide. Yet, with reverse causality a homicide in the home might cause more guns in the home. Point in case, a criminal kills somebody with his or her bare hands. Then, other family members buy guns in response to the homicide. Sort of like the chicken and the egg. Did the gun come into the house and then the homicide? Or did the homicide happen and then the gun came into the house? Now for confounding factors. People who live in crime ridden areas are most likely more likely to carry a gun. In this case the crime came first, and then the gun. Take a relatively crime free area, less people would feel they would need guns. A study could then be made stating a correlation between low guns and low crime. The same would be true with a high crime area. More people would feel they need guns, and thus more would own guns. In summary, I'm not convinced that the guns are causing additional crimes. Instead another factor may be confounding the issues and causing both more homicides and more guns. A confounding factor such as higher crime, poverty, tension between political groups, etc. Thanks for the debate. Con rejects the resolution. There are too many variables to be sure that more guns means more overall homicides. Just as there is a correlation between crime and churches. There is a confounding factor of population density. Instead, I propose the opposite that more overall homicides means more guns. Links 1. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...
more guns means more overall homicides

"means" could indicate correlation too. it doesn't have to mean causation. " Pro Con knows of no definition of the word means that indicates correlation. Con has proven that the word "means" is a synonym for cause. "but all i have to say is they are correlated and con doesn't seem to dispute this. " Pro This would be true if the resolution was guns are correlated with homicides. Yet, this is not the resolution. The resolution is more guns means more overall homicides. There is no way to tell which way the correlation is pointing from the studies listed. Con will now explain the importance of the scienfic method. If person A saw person B drink water and then person B showed symptoms of sickness. Person A could come to the conclusion that drinking water from that source causes sickness. Yet, this could be a coincidence. Person A could be correct. The water could be contaminated. Or perhaps person B was already sick and the first symptom was thirst. In that case the sickness causes the drinking of water. Perhaps the two are completely unrelated. This is why jumping to conclusions is often inaccurate. Just as jumping to the conclusion that just because there is a positive correlation between guns and homicide doesn't mean that guns are the cause. Further evidence is needed. Finally there are confounding factors. Besides not everyone agrees. "The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally " safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation." [1] Note Con decides to pick reverse causality as the main method to refute Pro. Yet, there can be more than one cause of more guns and crime. Poverty, population density, political tensions, etc. Political tensions for example could cause both more guns and more homicides. At the same time whenever a homicide occurs more guns could be bought. Next, there could be three or more causes of both. For example poverty, political tensions, and population density could all be important factors in the same area. Increasing both guns and crime. This is called a confounding factor. In other words both Con and Pro could be wrong. That neither guns cause homicide nor homicide causes guns. Keep at it Pro, you prove the correlation well. Proving causation is no easy undertaking. Con is curious as to which is correct. In summary there are three possibilities. One, Pro is correct that more guns cause more homicides. Two, reverse causality in that more homicides causes more guns. Third, a confounding factor and the two are unrelated. Since Pro's position is that more guns causes more homicides that's 33.33333333333333333333333333% of cases. Con has the other two options. That's 66.6666666666666666666666666666666666% of cases. The majority of the evidence lays with Con. Vote Con. link 1. http://www.infowars.com...
more guns means more overall homicides

Resolution: more guns means more overall homicides Con interpreted the word means as causing. Mean "5. to bring, cause, or produce as a result: " [2]. Therefore, Con interpreted the resolution to as, more guns causes more overall homicides. "but anyways i didn't need to argue that all i said is the more you have guns the more you have homicide. " Pro The resolution implies more guns causes more homicides. As seen by the definition of the word mean. Con argues that more overall homicides causes more guns. In the sense that if there is a murder in the area, people get scared and buy more guns. Links 2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Horses should be used for meat.

Again, I will disregard if I lose this debate, I strongly agree with the con, but I decided to take the debate, I'm not conceding I'm just stating my excuse for competing in an unfit debate. My opponent is new to debate, why not let him have an easy win. Now I'm going to try and turn this debate AROUND! (hopefully)" (Con) However, if a consumer is willing to brave the health concerns listed above, the fact shall still remain that the use of a once beloved horse for meat abruptly severs the emotional bond the horse and its owner once had"Now I do believe I mentioned that an owner would not consume his own dead horse in my previous argument, because it basically eating your own pet. Ex: Eating your own dog, YUCK!" (Con) It is unlikely that the owner of any horse would be expecting it to die, unless it is extremely old or sick. Thus, the horse will be exposed to decay and toxins, as it lies dead on its owner's residence, waiting to be noticed. Even young, seemingly fresh meat would become unusable upon death. To add to this, any sickly or excessively aged meat is already unhealthy for consumption and would lead to health problems if ingested."Yeah that's true, again, in other countries, people use all the food they can get there hands on, unlike the U.S, where we have access to lots of food" (Con) If we decide today to use horses as resources for food, we lose one emotional connection"I don't believe horses will become a "main" recourse as food, because, unlike cows, horses are very useful as work resources, but they shouldn't be wasted, again with the other countries" (Con) Lose the horse today, and tomorrow the human race shall lose its love for all animals, becoming a utilitarian, efficient society not unlike Nazi Germany"Sure, whatever you sayAgain, no disregards for losing this debate, but if you feel nice maybe you could........I don't know award a few points to the pro, THANKS
Horses should be used for meat.

The pro-side representative has mentioned that he does "not believe that a living horse, that is healthy and young [sic] should be slaughtered" and agreed that "the slaughtering of a healthy horse is unjust." This leaves only horses that have already died for our food. It is unlikely that the owner of any horse would be expecting it to die, unless it is extremely old or sick. Thus, the horse will be exposed to decay and toxins, as it lies dead on its owner's residence, waiting to be noticed. Even young, seemingly fresh meat would become unusable upon death. To add to this, any sickly or excessively aged meat is already unhealthy for consumption and would lead to health problems if ingested. However, if a consumer is willing to brave the health concerns listed above, the fact shall still remain that the use of a once beloved horse for meat abruptly severs the emotional bond the horse and its owner once had. In the pro-side representative's proposed situation, a prospective horsemeat eater disregards any affection the owner had for his/her dead companion. If we allow horses, even dead horses, to be eaten, we disrespect these animals that have become almost human in many of our hearts, and horses go the way of the chicken, becoming a useful household tool, yet never more a cherished companion. If we decide today to use horses as resources for food, we lose one emotional connection. But greater, we oppress all animal rights and the potential bonds that humans can have with all animals. Lose the horse today, and tomorrow the human race shall lose its love for all animals, becoming a utilitarian, efficient society not unlike Nazi Germany.
Horses should be used for meat.

I did not want to participate in this debate in the first place, but I will not concedeOver the years, cows, ox, and horse, have been a very helpful instrument in the agricultural world. The Cow, a popular food source, and work force for small farms, is similar to the horse at a work source, unlike the cow, a horse does not consist as much edible meat. Horses are also helpful workers in the city, and country. Horses are very kind, and the slaughtering of a healthy horse is unjust (I also believe it is illegal). What I am getting at is that you shouldn't waste a dead horse (unless it contained a disease of some sort). In other countries, where food is scarce, after their horse dies, they use that meat, because, again, food is not grown as much as it is here. Rebuttals" (Con) The current leading practice in place to slaughter a horse is the bolt gun, an unusual instrument that penetrates the thick hide of the healthy horse, a large animal, aiming not to puncture any vitals but to bleed the horse into a miserable death."Okay that's wrong, but what does this have to do with eating horse meat? Just a point I might bring up" (Con) Horses are increasingly used to reduce rates of recidivism in prison inmates and bolster emotional health of the ailing elderly"Where is the proof, why does it boost the health of the elderly, how, give me proof" (Con) When we slaughter the animals we keep on our own property as beloved pets, we lose the sanitary comforts of having our food processed outside the home."I do not believe that a living horse, that is healthy and young age should be slaughtered. A dying horse, that is put out of misery, should be eaten, or if you do not have it in you to eat a beloved pet of yours, give it to some one who needs to eat. Good luck next round
Horses should be used for meat.

It is chiefly for practical reasons that horses should not be used for food, however one shall additionally object to the slaughtering of horses to safeguard the health of the animal and human community. The current leading practice in place to slaughter a horse is the bolt gun, an unusual instrument that penetrates the thick hide of the healthy horse, a large animal, aiming not to puncture any vitals but to bleed the horse into a miserable death. The bolt gun is intended for killing stockier, heavier animals like cattle, not the sinewy horse, and this overkill can often ruin useable meat. Furthermore, the horse, often bred for sport, have little useable meat to begin with on their lithe, muscular frames. Horses are increasingly used to reduce rates of recidivism in prison inmates and bolster emotional health of the ailing elderly. By slaughtering the horse, a loyal and therapeutic companion, we blur the line between our homes and our slaughterhouses. When we slaughter the animals we keep on our own property as beloved pets, we lose the sanitary comforts of having our food processed outside the home. Our pets, our dogs and cats, come to be viewed as food by our neighbors and countrymen.
Horses should be used for meat.

horse (n.) a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped, Equus caballus, domesticated since prehistoric times, bred in a number of varieties, and used for carrying or pulling loads, for riding, and for racing. meat (n.) the flesh of animals as used for food.Round 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for debateRound 3 is to attack and defendGood luck, you may start