BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do you believe The Ghost,Jin Exist. or have you seen them

No, I'm bringing up your grammar because people can vote negatively if they don't enjoy reading a reply. I'm just trying to help you out here. The issue with your recorder is quite simple. Recorders like your one have a sensitivity meter built into them. When you go silent, the recorder ups it sensitivity to better hear you, but it also picks up interference from phones in the same way that you hear a buzz when you hold a mobile near a speaker set. Humans are naturally inclined to try and recognize faces and voices in the world, which is why we can spot faces appearing on toast so well. The same goes for sound. We try to interpret sounds as human like, like when we try to guess emotions from animal barks. Electricity is a trace energy in the body, meaning there's very little of it, and it only exists in the nervous system. When you die, the electricity becomes heat energy (like how light bulbs and power cables heat up) . Oh, and the electricity doesn't make our heart beat, the heart beating is an impulse which happens without the nervous system even commanding it. It's not powered by energy, it's powered by the potential energy stored in carbohydrates we digest from food (source; Leaving Cert. Biology) and the nervous system has little to no part in it. On the subject of Ghost Hunters, I recommend to you any of the Derren Brown series about the paranormal, as Derren is a renowned psychiatrist and magician, familiar with the issue at hand. If you desire a rematch, feel free to challenge me. This is the final round, and perhaps we shall cross paths again. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Do you believe The Ghost,Jin Exist. or have you seen them

Firstly, it is a very common rule of argument that when you don"t have the point, talk about the grammar and spellings. The truth is you have no strong point which can deny the fact of presence of Ghost. No thanks for the recommendation. In the useful information about the subject which I mentioned, need a positive proactive type(not reactive) approach which voters have and will judge the truth. Let me tell you about John Kachuba , if you have reading habit, you shall know that he was not only a writer but also a good researcher. He himself spent lots of time to find fact to add in his books and he was successful. In an interview he mentioned." At the Moundsville State Penitentiary, in West Virginia, we were in a cell block that was reported to have activity and I had a small recorder in my pocket. When I played back the recording I could hear the voices of all 3 people that had been there, and I heard another voice but it wasn't any of those three. I have gotten recordings with other groups, and unlike a lot of the EVP recordings that you usually hear, I was able to actually distinguish that there was talking and say that I don"t know who is talking. I have had some "photographic evidence, when I was working with David"s group". What it proves, that the fourth voice was of Ghost. Do you know EVP? Let me add your knowledge. EVP is a way to communicate with spirits. Researchers believe that the voices of the dead can be recorded and played back on magnetic audio tape. It is the most modern way to communicate with the spirit world. When we are alive, we have electrical energy in our bodies. ... What happens to the electricity that was in our body, causing our heart to beat and making our breathing possible? After a person dies, the potential energy in his or her body goes where all organisms' energy goes after death: into the environment. When a human dies, the energy stored in his or her body is released in the form of heat, and transferred into the animals that eat us and the plants that absorb us. But the electricity which runs the system of body ,which basically soul transferred into Ghost or Spirit or Jin. Ghost hunters can detect the electric fields created by Ghosts. Your move.
New US Health Care legislation is likely to resulting in requiring change of providers

President Obama has repeated the claim "under new health care legislation, if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it." http://abcnews.go.com... Since none of the existing proposed legislation has this feature, it seems unlikely that anything coming out of the present Congress will have it. 1. Under HR 3200 (the Pelosi House Bill http://www.opencongress.org...), a government option is proposed, priced at 20% below insurance competition. The low rates are justified by simply cutting the reimbursement to providers. Under the legislation, small businesses can drop their existing health care and instead pay a fine of 8.5%. Estimates of the number who will lose existing coverage by this mechanism range up to 121 million people. The Heritage Foundation puts it at 83 million. Whatever the number, it is certainly not zero. Those people will not have the option of keeping their existing health care. "... a new report by the Lewin Group (commissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage." http://spectator.org... 2. In the Baucus mark-up from the Senate Finance Committee, and all other legislation proposed by Democrats of which I am aware, the law requires coverage at a minimum of 65% of actuarially expected costs. http://alankatz.wordpress.com... This will make a large number of existing insurance policies illegal. In some states, a majority of the policies. [Senate testimony, yesterday] The people with those policies they will be unable to keep them. 3. Some people have insurance available to them, but choose not to buy it. They prefer to buy health care as they need it. This may be unwise, or not, but it is what they want. (It includes some who choose to go to another country for health care, in whole or in part.) Under proposed legislation, this will not be allowed. Therefore they will not able to keep what they have. 4. Under HR 3200, if a person loses their job they have no choice but to take the government option. (p. 16, op cit) It is possible that the Democrats will accept legislation that permits keeping what a person now has, but it seems unlikely. President Obama make his big speech with the standard claim when HR 3200 was the only bill on the table, and he did not acknowledge the real problems. It is therefore apparent that the Democrats are playing a game of semantics, claiming that if the lose of choice is an inevitable consequence of the legislation rather than in explicit language, it doesn't count. It counts. Perhaps the loss of current health care plans is a net benefit, perhaps not. That's not the subject of this debate. The debate is about the truth of the assertion that "if you like your current health care, you will get to keep it." The statement is is in all likelihood false. The resolution is affirmed.
Whiteboards

I can agree for the smart-boards. Those are sentient animals. Box #2: Most white-boards are like common robots, Relying on humans to reproduce. I do not believe that this means they aren't alive. Imagine a human with a condition that does not allow them to have children. Are they alive? Yes. Box #8: The normal whiteboards have EVOLVED from chalkboards, And have gained new features (such as being able to be projected onto) over the years, And I also believe this is evolution. Box #6: The whiteboards RESPOND to you covering them with toxins by holding the ink on them (acting how us humans want them to so that we do not punish them further. ) Box #5: Strategies that allow better performance are not ditched and are carried over to new whiteboards Box #7: Why does a living being need to be able to grow? Imagine a person with a birth defect where they do not grow bigger nor grow hair/fingernails. They are alive. Box #4: Going back to what I said about the whiteboards reacting to you writing on them, They are written on (stimuli) Information is sent to back of whiteboard (the control center) and then the whitboard holds the ink so they are not tortured more (response). As for box 1, I can agree that common whiteboards do not have cellular organization, And that is a point that helps your argument.
Whiteboards

As far as science can tell, Only living things are capable of thinking and feeling pain. To be alive, Whiteboards must be capable of the following. . . 1- Cellular organization 2- Reproduction 3- Metabolism 4- Homeostasis 5- Heredity 6- Response to stimuli 7- Growth and development 8- Adaptation through evolution No normal whiteboard has those properties. However, My research has led me to a very peculiar type of whiteboard. SMART-BOARDS Unlike whiteboards, They have cells (battery cells), They reproduce (due to censorship I am not able to link evidence, However I have witnessed the process at a factory), They metabolize (their cells convert stored chemical energy into their energy), They actively attempt to maintain homeostasis (they erase themselves, Or let a human do it for them), Their traits are passed on through generations (through newly improved "models"), They respond to stimuli (i. E. Being tapped with an e-pen and responding with a click or line on the display), They grow and develop (software updates), And they do adapt (to the market and school's budgets and needs) through evolution. This realization shocked me, And while I do still believe normal whiteboards aren't conscious, And do not feel pain, I believe we can reach a consensus on the current state of the smart-board, A living, Conscious being which is being abused, Tainted, And poisoned publicly. Whiteboards? Meh. However, MAJOR steps need to be taken to save the smart-board from certain extinction. Once again, I hope you can agree. A smart-board sadly awaiting its abuse: https://encrypted-tbn0. Gstatic. Com/images? Q=tbn:ANd9GcRCUcDv7omSsFI8yhhh4BEk1zDCRXdFiewvIy4WzTKZTbU21T9q5A
NCFL LD topic 2010

Well, I promised you voters last round, so here they are. but before I give them, please allow me to extend some crucial points. Extend my value of Maximization of Peace because 1) It is the only value left in the round. Her value of morality has been thrown out due to my past arguments which went uncontested. 2) My value has been argued the "most moral" choice, so since that goes uncontested as well, extend it. Extend my criterion of Government legitimacy because it is the only criterion to link with. That being one of many reasons. Voter #1- I won the Value/Criterion debate, because mine stands, hers falls, uncontested. Seeing as that's the core of LD debate, I have won the debate already. Extend Objectivism, which goes uncontested throughout the debate. This argument shows that affirming is stubbornly immoral. Voter #2- In the Aff world, you have stubborn headeness, leading to a borderless America, linking to the fall of America and the world as we know it. In the Negative world, rainbows and sunshine. Voter #3- Seeing how my attacks on her case go uncontested, we must assume she concedes and that her case now has many many fallacies, making it fall. Her attacks on my case were dropped, making mine if not perfect, at least the better alternative. So as the only one with any substantial arguments, vote Negative.
Pickup trucks should only be available to those who can prove they need them

I look forward to reading your arguments.1- Con states that the freedom to buy cars will be restricted. This is not entirely true; only the freedom to buy an overlarge large car that has twice the CO2 emissions of a sedan (table near bottom) [1] that is inherently difficult to park based upon reviews [2]. People should not be able to go out and just buy a truck because they want them, and I don't really believe they should be able to go out and rent a moving truck (see: my mother, who has driven small sedans with the occassional mom-van all her life, driving a truck that really should require a class A license. That was terrifying). Similarly, Con asserts that making trucks more exclusive deprives people of their rights. As an example, I will admit to being a crazy cat lady in the making. If I could, I would go and adopt my county's worth of stray cats, and then some more. This isn't practical at all, but it would make me happy. The same applies here. People may want to get a truck since they make them happy, but since they are not practical vehicles unless they can prove it, they cannot get one.2- Con has me pinned on this one, economics are not my forte. However, if demand suddenly decreased to a select few that are able to prove that they need trucks, competition would increase. Which company has the best truck for the worker's needs, which truck has the best quality, etc. Con also neglects that car salesman and manufacturing skills are transferrable to other companies that would certainly go through a boom. [1] . https://www.edmunds.com...[2] . https://www.f150forum.com...
Pickup trucks should only be available to those who can prove they need them

I'll be arguing against the resolution that pickup trucks should only be available for those who can prove they need them. I will be proving that pickup trucks should be available for anyone who wants one. 1. If pickup trucks should only be available to those who have occupations that are comparable to the said vehicle's uses, the freedom to buy cars are limited. People who simply are enthusiastic about buying cars for themselves or getting a pickup for somebody, say a birthday gift, will be discouraged to buy one. Cars, each and every kind, should be available to every citizen of every state and country. The narrowing-down of availability inherently deprives the people their right to happiness, choice and freedom. People shouldn't be restricted of their freedom, limited by choice. 2. Across the globe, there are tens of thousand car industries that manufacture pickup trucks. Being fairly massive around the globe, a dramatic decline of sales would be potentially dismal to virtually all companies. If a certain company's only line of business is manufacturing pickups, then falters, jeopardizes its worker's source of living, ignites global protest, would it be favorable? Let me tell you that if you disable the people choices they should be open to, the imagery of chaos, mild or worse, is the perfect example of its result. Over to Pro.
Pickup trucks should only be available to those who can prove they need them

Wikipedia defines pickup truck as a "light duty truck having an enclosed cab and an open cargo area with low sides and tailgate." I will be arguing that they should be available to only those who can absolutely prove they need them using the following points: 1- They are not pragmatic vehicles for everyday usage as a commute car. They are over large, can be jacked significantly higher than need be, and often require side mirrors that jut out over a foot to either side. Some don't fit in parking spaces, others are so awkward to park that they might as well be taking up another's parking space. Many pickup trucks do not fit within the length of the parking space and stick out a foot and a half and make trying to back out a general nuisance. 2- They promote aggressive, unsafe driving. Unfortunately, it is a trend where I live (central Texas) for a demographic largely consisting of 16-40 year old men to get large, loud pickup trucks and drive them like fools. Anecdotal evidence from many peers suggest that being that high above the road and that much larger than other cars promotes a feeling of power, and this is the opposite of what needs to occur. 3- In order to prove the need for such a vehicle, the prospective vehicle owner must provide proof of a job or hobby that necessitates it. Examples include agriculture and hauling.
global climate change is human caused

Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for obvious reasons), I will reiterate my rebuttals to her opening statement and premise of this argument: "global climate change is human caused" -I presented scientific arguments from liberal as well as conservative sources disproving this premise. My opponent (who, as Pro, has the burden of proof) never presented one argument in favor of this premise. My opponent contradicted this statement with the following "Climate change may result from: • Natural factors..." "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -Again, I presented scientific arguments contrary to this statement, even though my opponent never presented any scientific arguments in favor of this statement. I suggested it was impossible for humans to "cause" global climate change, which occurs and has occured without the presence of humans on this planet (according to scientific evidence from both liberal and conservative sources). "which if not stopped will result in global warming." -I presented arguments denouncing this statement. Global warming cannot be, and should not be stopped. If the Earth did not have a natural mechanism to warm it's climate, life on Earth would be impossible. My opponent conceded this with the statement "Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped." presented in Round 2. Not only did my opponent not present any scientific arguments in favor of her premise, she contradicted statements she intended to support her premise.
global climate change is human caused

Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped. It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before. Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily. This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming. Why don't we define Global Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: •Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun •Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. ,changes in ocean circulation) •Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming.
global climate change is human caused

For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like "humans are causing the rise in global temperatures" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped.
The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.

Firstly, I would like to start by saying that is a very interesting and insightful analogy. A very important issue which I believe has not been touched is how long can the USA and UK go on for. As well all know in terms of being against the government the people of the US and UK pretty much oppose them at every turn and eventually in such a war, it will inevitably transverse into vietnam due to liberty. On the other hand, China and North Korea have a different approach to handle such issues and if this does come down to a battle of who can last the longest it would most certainly be the latter of the two groups of countries who would win. The fact that the geography of these countries is isolated is only beneficial to an extent, for example China, Russia and North Korea would easily be able to influence pretty much most of eastern europe and asia. Furthermore, there is also the fact that Cuba is right next to America which possesses threat to the American people at a local distance (Exactly like the Cold War). Although technology is very sophisticated it is also useful to have countries close together making it much easier to communicate which is very difficult especially with South Korea pretty much surrounded by Russia, China and North Korea making it even easier to isolate them. Quality of training is no match for guerrilla warfare as has been seen in afghanistan and vietnam on previous occasions. On top of this the vast population of China and Russia (accounting for at least 1/5 of the population) provides an almost impossible obstacle to overcome. What we have here is a subject which goes out beyond the confines of the countries you have listed and i'm not sure if you felt I should of approached the argument mentioning only these few countries but war is war and the more friends the better.