BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get.

I would like to welcome the Pro. Welcome. We've already got a transitor that is 1 nanometer long. (https://www.theverge.com...) Either way, the debate topic is not "Transitors will get smaller than they are now, right now or in the near future". The debate topic is "It is proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get." This means that you have not yet proved the actual topic and instead proved a strawman topic. I hold that it is NOT proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. Your job is to prove that it IS proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. I hope that helps clarify things. To reiterate, I argue that It is NOT proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get because, if it was proved, me, you or a reader who comments will have found that proof. Again, I am not confident about this, but if the voters chose one of our positions as being right, it would be best if they chose mine. It's been a pleasure having this debate. My regards to the Pro and readers.
It is proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get.

Actually, there is a limit to sizes of computer components because of how small transistors can get . Okay, let's back up here. Computers are made up of components and those components perform some functions like collecting data and processing it. Those components are made up of logic gates and those are made up of transistors. Transistors at its core are devices which block the entry of electrons. Well, the problem is that these transistors are going quantum. In the quantum world, physics doesn't work the same as it works here. Transistors cannot function because there is a quantum property called quantum tunnelling which does not allow the transistors to restrict the electron's movement, causing the entire computer to go bonkers While it is plausible and possible for computer parts to in the quantum level in the future but due to our minimal understanding of quantum physics,it is not possible for it to happen now or anytime in the near future. There you have it a proof which explains the exact property of physics which restricts the size of computer components
Black Lives Matter -Or- All Lives Matter

Once again I will ask that you provide correct information to support your argument. The true intentions of officer Darren Wilson simply cannot be determined. You can speculate that he is a racist, or that he is not. But for the sake of your argument, let's assume that he is not racist. The shooting occurred as follows, Michael Brown and an acquaintance by the name of Dorian Johnson were caught on camera stealing cigarillos from a local convenience store. This was reported to the police along with a description of the individuals. Darren Wilson then encountered the suspects, and realized that they fit the description. He made a call to dispatch reporting the situation and positioned his SUV to block the suspects. There was then an altercation between Brown and Wilson, in which case it seems that Brown was trying to take control of Wilson's gun. Eventually a shot was fired, followed by Brown fleeing the vehicle and Wilson proceeding to pursue him on foot. That being said, we have arrived at the point at which we can determine whether or not lethal force was justified in this situation. Michael Brown was unarmed, and nothing that he did up to this point rendered him worthy of being killed. Michael brown supposedly was running at Wilson, and Wilson then proceeded to fire multiple shots, which ended up killing him. There was no justification for Wilson to use lethal force, even if he felt threatened. When this case was finally taken up in court, Wilson was indicted, on the account that there was no evidence to support that he was guilty, which he clearly was. The black lives matter movement is about putting a stop to situations like this, not because only black lives matter, but that all lives matter, and that they all deserve the proper justice. Furthermore, if this example that you have provided was an accurate representation of the event that occurred, you cannot simply generalize that all situations of similar manner were the same. If you paid any attention to my previous statement about the true nature of the black lives matter movement, then perhaps you would realize that it supports the same concept that all lives do matter, and if you don't support these ideals, then you are clearly lacking a moral sense.
Black Lives Matter -Or- All Lives Matter

I too am a white male. I don't think that point contributes to your argument. As I previously stated, I also believe that all lives matter. You claim that the black lives movement is based on false information, yet your own argument is biased in that you seem to have come to a generalization that all cases involving the deaths of blacks are due to their own actions. That isn't even an opinion, it's simply an incorrect statement. If you can provide me with an example of the "false information", then I will gladly consider your argument.
Black Lives Matter -Or- All Lives Matter

The main problem with this topic, is that both sides support the same concept, that all lives matter. When people say that black lives matter, they are not saying in any way whatsoever that the lives of non-blacks do not matter, but they are simply focusing on the issue of inequality when it comes to the justice system and the common occurrences that prevent black lives from being protected equally under the rights of the law. More often than not, when it comes to cases involving the death of blacks, vs. similar cases involving the death of whites, there is an unfortunate similarity in which the blacks are treated with greater prejudice than the whites. The media will often portray the seemingly innocent black victims as being the ones at fault, while the clearly guilty whites are often portrayed as being somewhat innocent. Now I am not denying the fact that there are plenty of cases that are treated as they should be, in which case the death of a black citizen is completely justified, or that there are cases involving whites that are clearly being treated unfairly, but there is a pattern that must be recognized whereas the majority of unpunished murders are those of black citizens.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered.

I think the MLDA (Minimum Legal Drinking Age) should not be reduced. In fact, I think it should be INCREASED to 25. As MNN says:' According to the latest research, the human brain does not fully develop until around age 25. 'As ProCon.org says: 'Reports in the 1970's showing that teenage car accidents increased in states where the MLDA had been lowered from 21...'Sources:https://drinkingage.procon.org...https://www.mnn.com...
The economic impacts of carbon pricing in the United States

Why Carbon Pricing Hurts the EconomyCarbon Pricing (in the form of a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade) does significant harm to the economy. On top of this, it does little to stop pollutants and climate change. The first problem with Carbon Pricing is that it significantly raises energy prices. This would significantly lower households consumption and kill jobs in the energy sector. The Obama Administration, which advocates cap and trade, estimated that Cap and Trade could cost as much as $1761 a year per household. After taking the slower, the Heritage Foundation estimated that the bill would cost $3,900 a year. The reason that Carbon Pricing costs households so much is that it forces companies to switch to expensive non fossil fuel type energies. This forces up the price of energy. The other major problem with Cap and Trade is that it incentivizes companies to move to countries where Carbon Pricing is not a policy, bringing millions of jobs with them. These countries, like China and India, already have lower labor costs than the US. As you will note, companies moving to other countries does not reduce Carbon Emissions. Carbon from China is no better than Carbon from America. My opponent bases his argument on the idea that Carbon Pricing will do alot to lower pollution. In practice, this is not how it has happened. In Europe, where Carbon Pricing is practiced, there has been no noticeable impact on the environment. An Open Europe Study found that installations covered by the ETS actually saw Emissions rise by 0.8%. The fact is that Carbon Pricing does no good unless China and India adopt similar measures, which does not seem realistic. On another note, Pro claims that economist unanimously support Carbon Pricing. In fact, all my opponent showed was that Climate Economist support carbon pricing. This is different from all economists. I looked for a poll of all economists and found numerous ones showing that economists prefer market based Carbon Solutions (Carbon taxes and Cap and Trade) over Command and Control ones, but I didn't find anything that asked economists whether they supported carbon pricing period. I look forward to Pro's responseSources: . http://www.cbsnews.com... . http://blog.heritage.org...(Go to Page 198) . http://books.google.com...
God loves you

I really hope that was an attempt at trolling. Defense: There is little to defend, as my arguments have basically been ignored. “God loves everybody … [or] all of your qoutes are from a totally fallacious and completely invalidated source” Direct violation of the rules to this debate, “no agnostic and no atheistic arguments are permitted.” “your argument is baseless” If my argument were baseless for using the bible, than the counter bits from the bible would be equally baseless… However, that would leave the bits from my life still unquestioned proof that God hates me. “…you end up frying like an eternal sausage” This is only further evidence God does not love me. Either I take “him” back accepting that any perceived (and currently unchallenged) abuses were actually just how “he” expresses “his” love, or else he’ll fry me “like an eternal sausage.” Included in those abuses is taking my money (see previous round)… It is an actual truism that Pimps do not love their Ho’s, and pro claiming those behaviors are that of love is dangerously close to comparing God to a pimp. Secondary Argument: I can actually prove (biblically) that God hates LifeMeansGodIsGood, or if hate is too strong a word, certainly going to send him to hell. “God loves everybody the same, (John 3:16)” The above is not actually found within the indicated section of the bible [11]. The issues of borderline plagiarism (missing quotation marks) are forgivable; falsifying the contents of the bible however is not. As written in Revelation 22:18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;” LifeMeansGodIsLove (pro) has committed that exact sin, by claiming exact words (“God loves everybody the same”) are in an exact section of the bible, when they are entirely absent. And we know from what happened to Lot’s wife, that God does not forgive mistakes (he turned her into a pillar of salt, for the lighter offense of looking back [13]). “all of your qoutes are from a totally fallacious and completely invalidated source” Continuing Revelation into 22:19 “and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” LifeMeansGodIsLove has attempted to take away not just a few words, but two whole books from the bible (Exodus and Job). Sources: [11] Link for what Pro falsified https://www.biblegateway.com... [12] Punishment for adding to the bible http://biblehub.com... [13] Punishment for taking away from the bible http://biblehub.com...
God loves you

The Bible says God so loved the world (that's everybody) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God loves everybody the same, (John 3:16) Either God loves everybody as the Bible says He does or the Bible is full of lies and if you say the Bible is contradicting itself, then all of your qoutes are from a totally fallacious and completely invalidated source and your argument is baseless. God loves you, I'm sorry you feel or believe that He does not. He wants you to believe on Jesus who died in your place and rose from the grave, and recieve Him as your Saviour. He is God the Creator who died in your place to be your Saviour if you will admit you deserve to die and burn in Hell, believe on His resurrection, and call on God in the name of God the Son, Jesus Christ , to save you from the fire of Hell. He will come into you by His Holy Spirit and make you a child of God, bought back from Hell by paying your penalty with His innocent blood. I hope you realize God loves you and I hope you get saved from the fire of Hell before it is too late and your death is finalized and you end up frying like an eternal sausage.
God loves you

For this debate, no agnostic and no atheistic arguments are permitted. If you assert that God is not there, or that he cannot be proven to be there, then you are in effect saying there is nothing to debate about and if you make atheistic or agnostic assertions, you are automatically rejecting the premise of this debate without explaining why you feel God does not love you.You will probably win the debate if you make atheistic or agnostic assertions and in response, I offer no further attempts to persuade you that God loves you. If you make atheistic or agnostic assertions, generally I reply to those things according to Psalm 14:1. I'm a hellfire and brimstone Bible believing born-again Baptist preacher and I believe the LORD our God is a warrior who will take vengeance against all of His creatures He gave free will to and they used that free will to assert themselves against Him and deny Him the glory and Honor He is due for creating them and giving them freedom.I really don't care if I win or lose the debate.........If one person who believes God does not love them can be persuaded to believe God loves them, I get the bigger prize from God.
God loves you

Again, John 3:16........For God so loved the world........that is you, me, my opponent, and everybody else. God loves you. My opponent is rejecting God's love so of course my opponent will take passages of the Bible out of context and try to place blame on God and try to accuse God of fault as a means of proving God does not love Him and blame God for not loving Him rather than take responsiblity for His own rejection of God's love for him.In ignoring or casting aside Bible passages whcih clearly state God loves my opponent, He is showing He does not believe the Bible and therefore all of his examples from the Bible would be examples he is getting from a source my opponent would have to say is totally unreiiable.My opponent has no reliable source for saying God does not love him other than his own feelings of being unloved. If a person willfully rejects God's love, they can never know God loves them, but He loves them still......if you say there is no God who created all things, life's value certainly is questionable. God values life and especially His creatures which he endowed with free will, reasoning, and creative powers like His because He is good and He enjoys Himself and He enjoys all of His creatures who do what He designed them to do, to enjoy the freedom He gave them honorably, and to give their Creator all of the honor and glory for the life He gave them.Why should a man complain about the punishment for his sins? God does not willingly afflict or grieve people. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. All who are turned against Him will be turned into the fire of Hell. God is not willing that any shoudl perish, but that all should come to repentance. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.Life Means God is Good!!!!! That is why it's value is unquestionable!!! For crying out loud, repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved from the fire of Hell!! God Himself (Jesus Christ) died in your place to pay for your crimes against Him and rose from the dead so He is just to punish your violations of His holy law with the fire of Hell if you reject His payment for your sins and you refuse His offer of pardon through the blood he paid with for you......God's gift offer is eternal life, salvation from the fire of Hell which we all deserve! Recieve the LORD JESUS CHRIST as your Saviour through faith and you will be a child of God and heaven.Let me know if I can help you pray about this.
God loves you

As the goal of this debate is not to build a Tower of Babble, please use spell check. “false accusatons against God” No errors have been pointed to with my interpretation of the King James bible. Therefore this is a baseless repeat request by pro to toss away sections of the bible, to which I already (twice) covered how God punishes his sin [17]. “complain about the punishment for his sins? God does not willingly afflict or grieve people” Since it is safe to assume pro believes Jesus Christ washed away original sin, and I have made no complaints about how I will end up “frying like an eternal sausage,” this must be referring to how I am not white enough as stated in R1 “I was beaten as a child for such unforgivable crimes as having brown hair, made to eat dog food, never taught to read and write…” which pro has not raised any protest to the claim (by the hate group Real Women [7,8], not by anyone with a conscience) that this is “the Christian family ideal.” “His anger finally builds toward them untill they are cut off forever” Hell fits no known definition of love. If it does, please provide one. Conclusion: As stated in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (pro is of course welcome to provide any other translation, and prove said translation is not talking about love): “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” [19]. God (as described by pro) does not match the list. I mean pro is going to be stricken with plagues (either in this life or eternally in the next) for adding words into the bible [15], which is clearly God keeping “a record of wrongs.” This easy anger is made worse by being over an issue of envy and hurt pride. However to be fair, I have been apparently “using a source which he must say is faulty and full of lies” which either means the bible is full of lies, or I am. God hates liars, as stated in Proverbs 6:16-19 “These six things doth the Lord hate… a false witness that speaketh lies” [20]. Therefore either Pro is claiming the bible is full of lies, or he is conceding that God hates me (to be fair that is a false dilemma, as pro may argue it to be both). Sources: [19] Love defined in the bible https://www.biblegateway.com... [20] God hates liars https://www.biblegateway.com...
God loves you

Yes I am refusing to argue the slew of points my opponent is using as false accusatons against God based on his refusal to acknowledge that God loves him. If my opponent does not care that God loved him so much that He came down from heaven as the only begotten Son of God to die for the crimes my opponent has commited in violating His holy law, so God Himself by suffering in my opponents place paid the price with His own blood to secure my opponents pardon from the fire of Hell, then my opponent is doomed to fall under the punishment which fell on the Son of God who took the punishment to relieve my opponent from it's condemnation. My opponent in rejecting God's love for him is choosing his own damnation and if he does not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will fall under the wrath of God for his own fault the same as those who my opponent is trying to blame God for falling fell for their own crimes and their own fault.Why should a man complain about the punishment for his sins? God does not willingly afflict or grieve people. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. All who are turned against Him will be turned into the fire of Hell. God is not willing that any shoudl perish, but that all should come to repentance. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.God loves my opponent and wants my opponent to concede his guilt and God's right to punsih him. It grieves God that He must punish His creatures for their rebellion against Him, and after they repeatedly reject His love, His anger finally builds toward them untill they are cut off forever by their own willfull pride insisting they do not need God's mercy and in finalizing their death, they choose death over life and lose all hope of finding God's mercy in the fire of Hell which we all deserve.
God loves you

My opponent has committed the Moving The Goalpost fallacy; by intentionally delaying until R3 to claim that a only a certain translation of the bible is valid for this debate. This is all the worse, as it does not change anything I have already posted. “God loves everybody the same, (John 3:16)” John 3:16 still lacks the conclusion pro claims above, actually concluding with “but have everlasting life” [14]. Revelation 22:18 still curses people who add to the book of prophecy, Revelation 22:19 still condemns to hell those who take away from it [15]. That pro falsely attributed words to the book is unquestioned, and he tried to take away from it within this debate. God still forced Pharaoh to not free the Jews “And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses” [16]. Then slaughtered children as punishment for Pharaoah doing God’s will [17]. Job has little change, “seven sons and three daughters” killed because Job loved God, and God repaid this by making a bet with Satan. Included in this, “the fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them.” If the whole bet with Satan was not bad enough, God literally burned people to death because they were in the company of someone who loved God [18]. No explanation for how any of the above is love has been provided. Merely a claim (from pro) that if it is not love, than “the Bible is full of lies.” “Every word of God is pure and preserved forever” Every word. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (14). Note the perfection of the word “loved” past tense, not loves present tense. Past love is no assurance of present love. A Hypothetical Your daughter meets a man, you find out that he has a past history of torturing those who love him and murdering their family members. He informs you of his love for your daughter and that if she does not love him back by a certain time, he’s going to lock her in a torture pit for as long as he possibly can. Do you either call this love, and give him your blessings? Or do you keep her as far away from him as possible? “I am ignoring my opponents arguments because He is ignoring the fact that God loves Him” Pro has admitted he is refusing to engage with my argument, on the basis that I did not enter this debate already agreeing with him. While this is not him outright conceding, it remains pathetic beyond words. Sources: [14] John 3:16 is still missing pro’s claimed text https://www.biblegateway.com... [15] https://www.biblegateway.com... [16] https://www.biblegateway.com... [17] https://www.biblegateway.com... [18] https://www.biblegateway.com...