BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
fracking

Global warming is a serious issue that fracking can help to alleviate. Fracking is important to global economic stability until a renewable energy source becomes practical . As the earth attempts so support nine billion people we will require a large array of energy resources, with breakthroughs such as fracking. Replacing coal with natural gas in power plants can reduce these plants" greenhouse emissions by up to 50% (Howarth, Ingraffea, & Engelder, 2011). Today, in the United States, fracking accounts for 50% of produced natural gas and 33% of petroleum (Howarth et al., 2011). The gas industry in America accounts for US$385 billion in direct economic activity and nearly 3 million jobs (Howarth et al., 2011). There are environmental risks, but these can be managed through existing, and rapidly improving, technologies and regulations. References Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop?. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275. doi:10.1038/477271a
fracking

In response, I can agree that there are standards in place that are helpful, but they are not a solution to the issue at hand. There are too many unknowns associated, risks, and possibilities with the what ifs that can be present with fracking. Most especially areas in and around sources of water. We must look at the way that fracking has managed to avoid additional regulations The use of these tactics hurts those most directly impacted by fracking; not necessarily reaping the economic benefits that fracking may be seen to bring. Fracking, specifically, is exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
fracking

For this debate, I will be addressing the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), is our best method of obtaining energy. In an effort to find alternative sources of energy a new drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), has become popular in many states. Fracking is a technique in which water, chemicals and sand are shot laterally to free oil or gas from rock. In the U. S. hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has not caused widespread harm to the public"s health or drinking water.
Righty10294 cannot legitimately defend his claim

Hello, thank you for taking up this debate. I feel very strongly about this subject (blind nationalism), and I'm happy to have someone to debate. Please excuse me for taking your statements out of order, I haven't edited them otherwise as you can see. "Given an education on how to better debate and the time to do better research. "Righty" could easily defend the claim that the US is a super power." This is absolutely, 100% true. But perhaps I should first point out that his claim was not that "the US is a super power". He stated that the world would not have democracy, the revolver, or the refrigerator without the United States and that the US is the BEST country and the BEST superpower. He may be able to argue with me, but, as stated in the title of this debate, he would have to be making legitimate (true/supported) claims. If you accept my evidence as legitimate, then it would be impossible for him to legitimately refute them. But your argument has made me realize that perhaps further explanation is required on what I mean by "his claim". I am taking his entire statement as a whole. The reasons he gave that led to his conclusion are all either false or simply not a good basis for his conclusion. My thesis is that he cannot legitimately defend his claim using the evidence already given. Perhaps a tautology (an invalid argument is invalid), but in my opinion educational nonetheless. "Secondly, because you use sources like Wikipedia, Righty could easily change the entries to make himself correct. You use a user-edited web site to find facts. Not only would Righty be able to change your sources to make him claim valid, he could debunk your evidence entirely on substance." This would not change the truth of any of our claims. He, or anyone else, may feel free to fact-check my arguments (Also, see the Nature study on Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica. Very interesting study where both were to shown to have about the same accuracy!). I purposely used Wikipedia because of its popularity and accessibility. I wanted to show the ease with which these claims can be refuted. But as I said, please feel free to fact-check, as we may all learn something. The only way I could see him refuting my argument is if he took a linguistic leap and claimed that when he says "we", he means Americans. But do note that while this would make his invention arguments completely true, they would do nothing to support his other claims.
Righty10294 cannot legitimately defend his claim

It is possible for Righty10294 to defend his claim. There are in fact many universities that teach debate. It is actually possible for him to take said classes and defend the claim that other countries are dependent on US aid. Secondly, because you use sources like Wikipedia, Righty could easily change the entries to make himself correct. You use a user-edited web site to find facts. Not only would Righty be able to change your sources to make him claim valid, he could debunk your evidence entirely on substance. Thirdly, since you introduce no other rules, such as a timeline for Righty to defend his claim, or any guidelines for whether he must defend the larger claim or only provide better evidence, you leave this debate entirely open ended. Given an education on how to better debate and the time to do better research. "Righty" could easily defend the claim that the US is a super power.
Best LIFE HACKS

You got some good ones! Here are mine: #1 If you want to fit 2 bowls in 1 microwave, have two levels: one bowl on the regular platform and another balanced on a mug [higher up] so they both fit. (Kind of hard to explain!!!) #2 Put old newspaper at the bottom of garbage bins to absorb food juices. #3 When you're crossing out words you don't want to be legible, don't scribble over them, write OTHER random letters on top of the words. #4 Bounce batteries to see if they are good or bad. Drop them on a table from about 6 inches up, if they give one short bounce then fall over, they're good. If they bounce around any MORE than that, they're dead [or on their way out]. #5 Store all your round Christmas ornament thingies in egg cartons. EXTRA: Take the end clips off clothes hangers and use them for chip-clips! I especially liked your #4. And #2 was fascinating. :)
Best LIFE HACKS

Sounds like a fun challenge! 1)When you want to quickly soften butter all you need to do is wrap it in a plastic bag and set it in a bowl of hot water until soft. 2)Crayons are excellent emergency lights they burn for hours! 3)Open a jar using duct tape 4)You want your kid to behave on a road trip? Bring a bag of candy and every time they misbehave throw a peice out the window. 5)To get someones number at a party take a picture with them and ask them to send it to you!
Best LIFE HACKS

INSTANTLY HEAL A PAPER CUT...rub Chap-stick to it MAKE YOUR PHONE LOUDER (amplify the sound)...put phone in a glass IF YOU DON'T WANT COMMERCIALS TO PLAY DURING YOUR VIDEO GAMES...put in Airplane Mode TO STOP BATHROOM WINDOWS FROM FOGGING UP (lasts a few days)...wipe a cloth with Lysol on the mirrors HOPE YOU LIKED MY DEBATE! Vote Pro!!
Best LIFE HACKS

Well, hoping 'con' will at least finish the "debate," I will continue to give some more life hacks for all to see and use: 1 When you want to have a colorful light, use cell phone light and put under a Gatorade/PowerAde bottle. 2 Wrap a wet paper towel around your sealed beverage and put it in the freezer. In about 15 min it will be almost completely ice cold. 3 Doritos are great for kindling if you can't find any! 4 To remove stem from strawberry... ...use a straw 5 A frozen, saturated sponge in a bag makes a great icepack that won't drip all over when it melts.
Abortion

Abortion is wrong and cruel. It's proven science that fetuses have beating hearts and are human, which means killing them is called "MURDER". I'll say it again. MUR-DER. Hillary Clinton during the 3rd presidential debate stated that we cannot be forcing women to give birth to children. She called the unborn babies "children"? So know we are killing innocent children and the government is wasting people's hard earned money on it. That's outrageous! When people make the claim they want "women's healthcare" they really mean abortion. No human has the right to kill another innocent human, the law says that. I pro-life not pro-murder.
The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

Are you suggesting that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are in a state of tyranny? (To name a few who do not share the same views on "right to bear arms" as we do. Do you really see a foreseeable future in a citizen uprising militia to over throw a would-be tyrannical government? Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, and still hasn't had the need for an uprising yet. Nor Australia founded on January 1, 1901 having much stricter gun than here. Is it because we are an older country that we have higher risk to becoming "tyrannical"? While America would be dis-armed, it's military and law enforcement would not. Most anti-gun countries at least understand that the necessity of a well armed militia is required to defend a country. I believe by repealing the 2nd amendment we can save many lives as it would not eliminate all guns but would drastically reduce the problems associated with guns and become a much more peaceful like our great white neighbors to the north. (White referring to the snow there not the race.)
The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

The context of the argument serves to further aid in understanding that is it through, not only the right, but the act of arming one's self and population that serves as that ultimate deterrence/protection to again inviting a tyrannical state. While the American population, in my opinion, has quickly and largely become ignorant to this own history and the lessons derived, many too are oblivious similar present-day international strife that requires such a civil defense and calls for this very right, one that may have prevented such. Hypocritically, even while pro-disarmament Americans rant their reasons to repeal, typically supportive of the Democratic party & president Obama (& admin) with his agenda, the president requested/send automatic guns to war torn/battling nations, and not fairly in the interests of humanitarian aid to all, but selectively to groups/nations of geopolitical interests (not saying Bush/GOP didn't): West Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Syrian rebels, SOUTH AMERICA, ect. So, should we wait only till people are lethally oppressed before we restore arms or request international help? The 18th amendment & it's deletion serves as a prime example of people/gov'ts attempting to use law/force to criminalize a fundamental human right, of a few outlined by the BORs itself. It's failure & costs is likewise the reaction the Red Coats faced when the 'powerful' attempt to oppress a 'powerless' people. Guns, like beer, don't vanish with law, but contrary. Banning guns doesn't stop murder, but only changes the statistics of how. It takes one with a gun to stop another. If one calculates gun death rates against US, one will both then & now see that it has been the nations/regimes that disarmed their population that led to tyranny, oppression, 'slavery' , and similar bloodshed in the NAME of the law. You use law/military to justify their arming from an enemy, but what happens when the government becomes the enemy, as we see & seen. Louisiana; 'good' cops in bad times
The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

When the 2nd amendment was written, we have to take it into context of why it was written. They came from a country that ravaged their homes. They forced them to keep their mouth shut about their government meaning they couldn't actually speak their mind if something bothered them. And of course they could never defend their land because their government wouldn't allow them to own guns. The reason for the first paragraph is this. the 18th amendment had its trial and failed so we the people recognized this and it was repealed. the 2nd amendment is an old law that is no longer needed. We now have a strong military and strong law enforcement to protect us and regular citizens don't even need a gun any longer for the reason the 2nd amendment was written. People seem to want to demonstrate that they have a right to bear arms simply for the ability to carry a weapon in Walmart, McDonalds, or other public establishments though there really isn't a need for them to carry, they just "want to". In the USA, the death rate calculated by guns is estimated to be about 10 million. Including accidental, Homicide and Suicide. Repealing the amendment will not eliminate this issue, but it will drastically reduce it. Comparing the countries that do not allow "the right to bear arms". the death rate via gun is substantially lower for example Canada only has about 3 million deaths by gun and they have no such 2nd amendment rights. They seem to be doing just fine. The Crime Rate seems to be also effected as crimes committed with guns are substantially lower in Canada than here in the USA. All in all, It is an old law and it is time to repeal and revise. http://seattletimes.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

The Constitution of the United States is a framework for a new, free government that was born of out collaborative minds of free-thinking intellectuals that went to war and separated from a tyrannical, oppressive and overbearing monarchy. The Constitution was to serve as the supreme law of the land, but places the power of government in the possession of the people, and establishes the civilian as being sovereign. To identify, recognize, and highlights the rights that all humans are born with, members of the Philadelphia convention soon after created and then ratified the Bill of Rights consisting of 10 amendments. These were to be considered unalienable and guaranteed personal freedoms, explicit limits of governmental powers, and reservation for states rights. One of these, the 2nd Amendment, is the right and protection to have and carry arms. With the experience, tragedy, and lessons learned from freeing themselves from their previous tyrannical ownership, the framers of these documents sought to codify in their new government that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". -BoR . Therefore, as they in their time, and us in our own time have, are, and will continue to learn (or observe, in lieu of learning), a protected and well armed civilian population serves as both the deterrent and last line of defense from both governmental and domestic oppression.
The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

This argument targeted is whether or not the 2nd Amendment, the individual's (civilian, not law officer) right to own & carry arms (guns), should be repealed. This target is NOT; the limitations on the type or arms that are/should be allowed/restricted, limitations on who should/not have that right, or limitations on where/when/how to carry, but the entire right as a whole, however these points may be used to supplement the target issue; repealing (or not) the 2nd Amendment entirely as it pertains to civilians.
Is chocolate a candy

I did this on my phone so I just pressed the middle button. Anyways, do you put Sour Patch kids in your ice cream? Probably not. Do you put Skittles in your souffl"? Nope. You put either Chocolate syrup or just Chocolate. That is because Chocolate is more of a delicacy than a candy. Some chocolate bars do have candy and it's up to you to decide wether or not you want it to be candy or chocolate. One example of something having syrup in it and not being candy is Fruit Punch. You have to mix SYRUP and water in order to make Fruit Punch. Is it a candy? No it is not. Another example of of something having SUGAR in it but not being a candy is Donuts, Ice Cream, Sweet Tea, several versions of coffee, and Juice. There are many products that have sugar or syrup in it but isn't a candy. I didnt have much time, so that's why I didn't really put real facts into my arguments
Is chocolate a candy

"Don't tell me how to debate" I most certainly wasn't, please stop plainly accusing without any backup information, it makes you seem weak. "I know how to debate but I don't want to." So why did you make this in the first place? "Chocolate isn't candy because it is not supposed to show up on your own feet" I'm sorry but where on earth did this sentence come from, if you are going to say things at least back up your information! "and I have no one else I want you here to do that I have no problem there are no words for me to be a liar." Please use sentences that normal human beings can understand. "I am right and you are wrong" Evidence for this? Anyway since you have neither rebutted nor given another true statement I will continue with mine. According to the Hershey Company, chocolate is a type of candy. Furthermore, Dictionary.com defines candy as anything made with sugar or syrup. Since one or both are frequently added in the process of making chocolate, it fits the definition of candy.
Is chocolate a candy

Firstly you have made no opening arguments to you debate which I find unreasonable. But anyway before we begin discussing we must first define what candy is. According to yourdictionary. com (http://www.yourdictionary.com...) candy is "a sweet treat usually made with sugar." Now the most popular type of chocolate in the United States was Milk Chocolate so we will use that as our basis. Milk chocolate (keep in mind it varies) has 52g of sugar in it. Haribo color-rado which is one of the companies all time best sellers has 55g of sugar. So this means milk chocolate only has 3g less sugar than what is defined as "candy" which would incorporate it into that category. I am interested to see your arguments.
Can anyone give me a reason why smoking tobacco out of a water bong or pipe is worse than normal cig

Although I see your reasoning, let me tell you a couple things here buddy oh palSmoking from a bong has basically the same effects (if not more negatives) than smoking from normal cigarettes [1]. According to a "recent study," apparently "water pipe smokers showed respiratory symptoms nearly as severe as cigarette smokers" [2].I can't help but notice what you said either -"i get dizzy" - no matter what you're doing, being dizzy is not a good thing. You get dizzy from the herb and that feels awesome, but it's really not "good." "I have puked doing this a couple of times tho" - this in itself should kind of tell you what you're doing isn't that great. Puking from tobacco is not good. The filter in normal cigarettes is a lot better put together than just a water filter.Hope I helped?![1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.torontosun.com...
Christianity Q & A

Thanks for your answer. I"m just going to analyse your religion a bit more: 1. So, before Jesus died, people HAD to follow the religious law and give sacrifices to God in order to get to heaven. They had to work hard. But after Jesus died, people literally don"t have to do anything to get to heaven but believe. It seems that sin was a very big problem for God then. Such a big problem that he had to send his only son to be tortured to death, then be burnt in hell for 3 days in order to get rid of a sin. So what happen now? You yourself said that people do sin, therefore they are sinful. Jesus did not die to get rid of all the sins of the future. So, here it is summed up: Before Jesus died, God couldn"t STAND people being sinful. He sacrificed his own son to get rid of a "sin of the world" then all of a sudden it didn"t matter as much if people sinned. He now looks at sinful people like they are pure. They can still go to heaven, even if they sin. It don"t matter how big the sin is either. 2. Here a verse that"s blocking me from converting to Christianity. "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and forces he to lie with him and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl"s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days." -Deuteronomy 22:28-29 This is the most horrible verse in the Bible I"ve come across. If a man rapes a women, he has to marry her and cannot divorce her? This verse is strictly against a simple human right for a woman. If you get raped for example, will you really be willing to marry a creepy rapist? Even if he rapes you and beats you more you cannot divorce each other? Seriously? P.S Sorry if I sound like I"m mocking Christianity a bit...
Christianity Q & A

Okay, thanks for offering to answer some of my questions. I'll start then, here is question number 1: If Jesus died to take away the sins of humanity, then doesn't that mean that once he was crucified there was no longer any such thing as sin? If his death was the absolution of the human race, why do I still have to follow the religious law, or go to church, or even believe? Am I not already saved by his sacrifice? And if I am not, and there are still rules to follow and sins that could keep me out of heaven, then what, precisely, have I gained from it? Also, why are infants supposedly born in sin? Innocent babies, who have done no wrong? "The final view is that unbaptized infants are not saved while baptized infants may be. This is the view of the Roman Catholic church and Protestant denominations which teach some form of baptismal regeneration." https://www.challies.com...
Social media should be banned for children under the age of 14.

I accept your challenge. I do not believe that social media should be banned for children under the age of fourteen. In most sites (Facebook, Tumblr etc.) you must be thirteen to have an account anyway, but I'm going to assume that you mean all social networking sites, including ones made for children. "Brain development is slowed down because of overusing." False. As long as you are not using social networks before the age of 9, your brain will be fine. for 10,11,12 and 13 year olds, brain development is mostly finished, and they are entering puberty. For girls especially, social media can help calm them down and keep them interested when they are feeling moody or having period pains. "It can cause mental illnesses, like a depression" They would only get depression if the only thing they do all day is go on the internet. Other mental illnesses are not caused by the internet at all. Most people use social networking (particularly Facebook) to sort out meet-ups with their friends. "It can cause aggression. The children might see something on the internet about another person that they don't agree on. Instead of saying this face to face they get angry." If children see something annoying on the internet, it usually isn't something that would genuinely ANGER them, and even if it did, I seriously doubt that they would get aggression problems over it. They get angry, send a message to that person and it's all over. "It can cause obesity because the time children used to play outside is now spent on social media." Again, you are only assuming this because you think that they sit on the computer all day. Most children under 14 do spend their time outside, and then they check their social networks with their phone every once and a while. "It can cause addictions. Nowadays there are many clinics with Internet-addicted children. The children in those clinics just don't know how to stop anymore." Being on the internet a lot is not an addiction, and you certainly wouldn't go to a clinic over it. The easy way to deal with an "Internet-addicted child" is to get the parent to make them join a club or threaten to take away the computer altogether if they don't spend some time off it. Problem solved.