BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Colonization of Space, Luna, and Mars in the next 20 years.

"What moon-resources? The moon was created when a massive meteor hit the Earth and expelled enough material into space to create a satellite. All of that material came from the same layer of the forming Earth - and that layer is not very rich in natural resources." You say that like it's a fact. Scientists have not been able to agree on how our moon was actually formed and there are several different theories. Until we do a little more research and visit the moon again, there's no real way to know for sure. That being said, there are several resources on the moon. We haven't actually drilled into the moon yet though so there's no way of knowing what's under the ground, but samples taken from the moon landing have had all sorts of minerals in them. "Also, the moon does not have an atmosphere." That statement is false. The moon does indeed have an atmosphere, but it is so thin that ships wouldn't risk burning up when leaving the moon or landing on it. Ships constructed on Earth need a lot more considerations. "You said: 'A larger and faster spaceship could travel to Mars and back to Luna in a much shorter time.' This seems easier said than done." Have you seen some of the larger boats(Such as ferries and crew ships.)? If we tried we could build a space ship of the same size, the only reason we don't currently make ships that large is because it would be too difficult getting it through our atmosphere. As for speed, the larger the ship the more thrust it could have. "Beyond all that, there's the question of how to get water, oxygen, food, and fuel to the moon, and how to do things like heat a potential colony." I knew you'd bring up oxygen and food. Oxygen and food would be no problem, a forest and some crops should help with that. We don't even need to send fuel to the moon either, nuclear power could replace fuel. As for heat, I don't think that would be a very big problem at all. Along with the nuclear power, there could be solar panels gathering energy. The only thing that might be an issue is water. Water could be recycled and filtered, but that filtered water would only last so long. Unless there were some underground ice reserves on the moon, shipments of water would have to be sent to the moon every once in a while. But there is some indication of ice on the moon. Mars wouldn't have the same water issues though, because there is plenty of ice on Mars.
Colonization of Space, Luna, and Mars in the next 20 years.

I have no qualms with your argument regarding the potential advantages of a viable colony on the moon on Mars, but I do think that you're adopting entirely too many assumptions and generalizations when it comes to the speed and ease with which such colonies could be erected. You said: "At humanities current technology level there should be nothing stopping us from actually starting colonies on at least the moon." This is what we said about 50 years ago, and it turned out not to be true at all. We haven't landed men (or anything) on the moon in 30 years, and to my knowledge, not many have been dreaming up more effective ways in which to do that. You said: "moon colony expansions(built with moon-resources) as well as the low gravity and atmosphere on the moon" What moon-resources? The moon was created when a massive meteor hit the Earth and expelled enough material into space to create a satellite. All of that material came from the same layer of the forming Earth - and that layer is not very rich in natural resources. Also, the moon does not have an atmosphere. You said: "A larger and faster spaceship could travel to Mars and back to Luna in a much shorter time." This seems easier said than done. Beyond all that, there's the question of how to get water, oxygen, food, and fuel to the moon, and how to do things like heat a potential colony.
Colonization of Space, Luna, and Mars in the next 20 years.

At humanities current technology level there should be nothing stopping us from actually starting colonies on at least the moon. Surely the benefits of colonization would be worth it as well. With the natural resources on Earth quickly becoming depleted, new sources for resources would help us develop faster. If we had a colony and a couple mines/refineries on the moon we could even make more trips to the moon WITHOUT polluting Earth's atmosphere or wasting anywhere near as much fuel. The benefits wouldn't end there either. With all the minerals we'd be mining and processing on the moon we could construct satellites and ships for cheaper, as well as being able to expand upon the colonies. We could also put a scientific research station on the other side the moon where all the "noise" from Earth wouldn't make listening for alien races harder. All the extra resources and moon colony expansions(built with moon-resources) as well as the low gravity and atmosphere on the moon could lead to the construction of space ships that don't have to be designed with Earth re entry in mind. This would let us create much faster and larger ships compared to NASA's shuttles. A larger and faster spaceship could travel to Mars and back to Luna in a much shorter time. When this larger ship is in orbit of Mars its much larger cargo hold would let it construct a facility on Mars in less trips than any other ships could.
I believe all drugs should be legal

RebuttalsBasically, my opponent indicates that he has forgotten parts of my arguments. He is still making the following point: "It is my own body. Drugs may damage my body, but it is my decision." In the first round, I made an argument, and this is definitely NO opinion, that one of the many influences of drugs is that it can cause you to become somewhat unconscious, which can cause you do things you do not intend to do and not be aware by the dangers of what you are doing, such as killing. Killing is a potential from taking drugs, and that indeed, affects others.Yes, indeed, I said that drugs absolutely do not do good as if it was an opinion, as I wasn't specific enough. Luckily, I have one more chance to go for saying this as fact, so here we go: Drugs have the good of pleasure (If taken uselessly), though if taken uselessly, it can render you unconscious and do things such as killing. If you think that is alright, that is like saying killing itself is alright because it has the good of pleasure. Also, if drugs are needed to be taken (e.g. You have the flu. You need medicine), go ahead. There was an actual benefit to use it, and if drugs are taken because they are needed, it will not cause you to become unconscious. If it was taken and it did not do much, it is acceptable to overdose, but overdosing because you want to can render you unconscious, and as I have been saying, can cause you to do things such as killing.I thank my opponent for such a debate. I leave it up to the voters to choose a side.
I believe all drugs should be legal

No, I your opponent am saying drugs shouldn't be illegal and you my friend are to give points on why it should remain so. So far all I've seen is opinions and risks that exist with or without these laws. The only thing these laws do is fill our prisons and waste police efforts that could have gone to a better cause. Regulations on drugs would not be a bad thing but to simply tell someone you cant do this because I feel it may affect me is the premise of many wars and prohibitional gangsters. The facts are this I own my body, you do not I own my drugs, you do not if you are not certain that I will do something nefarious because of this which you cannot be, then you can not tell me I cannot indulge. Something you must understand this is a place of facts not opinions there is a section for that, in your opinion : "Drugs have absolutely no good use.". Perfectly fine don't use drugs, as it doesn't suit your opinions but are you really telling me you should be able to tell me what and what not to do based on possibilities? that is tyranical. the facts are most illegal substances were at one time used spiritually or medically. you can not be sure I will harm anyone else with drugs. Drugs would create tax revenue that could go to police efforts in important matters such as rape and murder. The last and most important fact, you can not tell me what is of use to me. I await my opponents rebuttal.
I believe all drugs should be legal

Thank you for the pleasant disposition in both your intro an outréThat being said I have one question So, what your telling me is you want me not to be able to do something because of something I may do while in use? Sounds like Soviet Russia by that logic cars should be illegal because you may hit someone, protests should be illegal because it could turn into a riot an back to my earlier point since you may add chloroform to your napkin and use it your napkins should be schedule 1 don't you see that it never works trading freedom for safety, it is a deal with the devil.Thank you again I await your debate.
I believe all drugs should be legal

I look forward to a good debate!Argument(s)Yes. It is indeed your decision to take drugs, but you have to take it somewhere where there is absolutely no way of coming in contact with others. It is your body. There are lots of ways drugs can damage your body, but it is your decision to inflict the pain onto yourself.Drugs can cause you to do things you do not intend to do, like punching a person, kicking a person, hell, even killing one. So, yes, indeed, you do affect others from taking drugs.So, that is why I believe drugs should remain illegal. I await my opponent's arguments.
I believe all drugs should be legal

This is my body, if I want to stand here with a live grenade in my hand an watch it blow up who are you to tell me I cant. Now apply that logic to every drug. You shouldnt tell other people how to live. Oh an by the way I decided your not using napkins anymore and if you do the government an I are going to break into your house, beat the $#!% out of you and convict you. You see, how can you tell me what to do if i am not hurting anyone.
Debates main goal is for the people watching, not the people in the debate.

I totally disagree with you and your dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com... Debate: deliberate upon, consider Debates aren't for spectators. The spectators play the role of the audience for the stars of the show -- The Debaters! When one debates with one's self, the "main goal" isn't about witnesses. It is about The Debaters deliberation upon whatever is being considered.
Debates main goal is for the people watching, not the people in the debate.

The whole concept of a debate is that two arguments will be pitted against each other. My dictionary says this. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. So debates are like an intellectual contest. With two or more competitors. The competitors are not going to yield in the middle of the debate and say "oh I was wrong you were right great." thats the equivalent of a boxer just stopping in the middle of the ring and saying "hey your better than me" So it occurs to me that the usefulness is not in convincing the debtors, it comes from the people watching the debate. That through the debate the strong points of an argument are presented, and the weak points are defended, and that may or may not effect the people watching. So this is a one round debate . I thought this subject is interesting, so the person who picks up the con has one shot to show me otherwise.
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

Where she started out by saying that with bad results equals bad invention. This is not true. (Back to the hammer example) You have to see that the hammer is a great invention but has had some bad results. A good example is from Marietta Georgia. .. "A man remains in the Cobb County Jail today charged with killing another man with a hammer. .. He says Brown became enraged when the lot's owner asked him to stop. Witnesses told police Brown walked away and came back a few minutes later with a hammer. Authorities say Brown hit Freeman over the head and killed him. " . http://www.13wmaz.com... -Basically you have to see that a good invention can still be used in bad ways to get bad results. It's the same way with nuclear weapons. They have been used well and they have been used bad. .. but it is still a good invention both because it supports MAD and because it helps the basis of nuclear power. -->Off where she said that WWII was bad to for the world because now they are striving to protect themself. -What you have to see here is that they are striving to get nuclear weapons to protect themself and support MAD. That is not a bad thing but actually a good thing. With MAD, it puts all countries on a equal military level. That's right, the invention of nuclear weapons supports world wide equality through MAD. Not to mention that since MAD has been created, no nuclear bombs have been dropped, therefore, it is effective and it does stop countries from going to war. -->Off where she said that nuclear power plants are bad and she says that she has proof saying that they are. .. -First off, you must look back to her other speeches. I have not seen ANY evidence proving that this is true. In fact, I once watched a professional orater give a speech on how nuclear power is underrated and the LEAST killing type of power EVER CREATED. Less people have died from nuclear power and it is effective, therefore, it is a good invention. -->Off of where she said that MAD is a treaty and treaties fail. .. -What you have to see is that MAD is a treaty which is one protection that MAD has and has worked ever since it was created. Secondly, the biggest amount of protection that MAD has is fear. Fear that if I nuke country "A", that country "A" will nuke us right back. Therefore, it is very effective. -Nuclear weapons is a major equalizer which is why it is a good invention.
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

1st Statement -- Pro is forgetting that Nuclear Weapons were invented. So the debate can be debate as Nuclear weapons --> Invented --> effects of nuclear weapons --> bad! --> thus bad invention. He gave the example of the hammer as a good invention but still capible of killing someone. .. First off the hammer doesn't kill people, people kill people. Now, I know Luke is going to say against this that, you need people to launch the nuclear weapon. That isn't always the case. One little thing goes wrong millions could be effected. Therefore, nuclear weapons. .. are still a bad invention. Also he continued to say nuclear weapons prevent and stop war. No it doesn't! Like I stated before, if we didn't have nuclear weapons we wouldnt be in the war we are in now! Nuclear weapons cause disputes between countries! !! Not peace. .. Pro's Case ---> Against the whole WW2 nuking. .. . look where that put us. Now everyone is striving for nuclear power and starting wars over it. .. war right now. . Points one and two ---> Okay first off. Nuclear power plants bad idea. It creates the nuclear waste causing a problem for society and the enviornment. Thus, we shouldn't have nuclear power plants. No nuclear power plants. . no nuclear weapons, which I've proven to be bad for society. On to my case . .. Against the "MAD Stuff". .. I'm guessing this is like a treaty right? Well North Kora signed a treaty saying they would not acquire nuclear weapons, later they backed out. There's more examples like that also. So hun stuff like that don't always work like we would want them to. Also, there's a flaw in MAD. No one will start nuclear war with eachother. .. . Then why the heck is the United States fighting for nuclear deterrence? That's a little odd. Shouldn't we trust our enemies? Thats what the MAD plan says to do. Clarify what you want me to clarify. .. flow got messy not sure what 2nd you want. Thanks :) In the end MAD doesn't work like he says it does, and con shows that nuclear weapons are turely the worst invention ever made.
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

Luke stated that I didn't give examples of better inventions - against that, it's common knowledge. If you think about it there ARE CERTAINLY better inventions. Off to Luke's case. .. Arg 1 He stated that Nuclear Weapons stopped WWII --> off that it was stopped in an inhumane way many innocent people were killed! I'm sure my opponet values like . .. (that distroys the meaning! ) Also he said in that argument that it stops war when really it created it. (refer back to my case) Arg 2. I'd as for some examples with evidence on the MAD stuff. Arg 3. Enviorment is very important. Today over enviorment isn't doing so good. Nuclear Power plants don't help. there are other inventions that are more benificial liek for example. The huge fans we see in the plains, they genorate power. . off to my case. . 1st point. MAD) Id like some examples w/ evidence. Also I'd liek to restate my 1st point. I said that Nuclear Weapons are not a good thing because of the distruction it does. Yes we can't get rid of nuclear weapons which causes a problem. Also prevention causes more problems. Altogether that proves nuclear weapons are bad! 2nd point. He said that disputes between countries are very few. That is not true. There are disputes more then Pro realizes! Therefore that is a problem! Again. . some evidence and examples for MAD. 3rd point. That card basically shows the problems with nuclear weapons. Obviously Pro didn't understand that. :)
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

-To start out my first speech, I would first like to point out that my opponent never gave any better inventions. Therefore, I would contend that all we are debating is that nuclear weapons are a good invention. -I will first start with my case... 1. Nuclear Weapons stopped WWII. -When looking to nuclear weapons as being good or not, we must first see what it has accomplished. The only time that nuclear weapons have ever seriously been used was back in WWII against Japan. As a result the war was over which more than likely saved many lives. Therefore, you must see that nuclear weapons are effective in stopping and preventing wars. 2. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevents wars. -One of the big things that is always overlooked is that countries use MAD to gain an advantage in war. Since other countries gain the capability of being just as strong as every other nation, we then become scared to attack other nations because they will more than likely just nuke us back. Therefore, mutually assured destruction is established. In other words, MAD prevents unnecessary use. 3. With nuclear weapons comes useful nuclear power. -With the study of nuclear weapons, we can then become familiar with the use of nuclear power, which is extremely useful in a time of dire need of power. We must acknowledge the creation of nuclear power by first acknowledging the creation of nuclear weapons. -Let's move to her case... >off her first point where she said that we can't stop nuclear weapons. -All I really have to say to this is that this does not prove it's a bad invention and also the reason that we can't prevent it is because of MAD which is a good part of the "nuclear weapon invention." >off her second point where she said that it causes disputes between countries. -What you have to see here is that the amount of disputes caused by nuclear weapons is VERY few. However, nuclear weapons SOLVE more disputes than it creates. MAD is an extremely useful tool to stop countries between nations of all sorts. Therefore, the amount of disputes solved by nuclear weapons when compared to the amount of disputes started by them is highly outweighed. >off her third and final point where she said that the United States should stop working towards nuclear deterrence. -I actually agree with this point. Working towards nuclear deterrence usually not a good idea. However, all we are debate is if it is a good invention, not a method of stopping it. -In the end- Nuclear weapons solves more disputes than it causes because of MAD. It stopped WWII and helped develop nuclear power, because of that, it is a good invention and is a better invention than any that my opponent provided since she did not offer any. Therefore, I urge a Pro vote. -Thank You.
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

Inventions, they are all around us. Some have worked and some simply haven't. Others may have worked, but failed to help us at all. One example of this is weapons of mass destruction, in other words nuclear weapons. It's been proven that nuclear weapons are a huge harm, but also a great resource. With that, is the invention of nuclear weapons a good or bad invention? I would have to say it's a bad invention for the following reasons. First of all we all know the definition of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, and we probably all have to agree that it's definitely not a good thing at all! If we know this, why don't we get rid of them? The reason we haven't is because once nuclear power was invented there was no way to get rid of it. Even prevention hasn't yet to help. The United States is big in preventing nuclear weapons, or so we think. As we know the United States is in a war for nuclear deterrence, but unfortunately the war is now one big lie. A man named Mr. Wilson investigated the war and came back with information to believe that Iran did not have or try to purchase yellowcake, a type of nuclear substance. Wilson later reported this to the CIA saying that the administration had lied about the reasons for going into war. This of course got to the White House and later Dick Cheney blew Valerie Plame's cover with the CIA to punish her husband for exposing the information. By doing that it gave us information to believe that the information is true. Second of all nuclear weapons are creating disputes between countries. Like I stated before the United States is in a war for nuclear deterrence. Now, this could go many ways. Other countries can look at the United States and say, this isn't fair… they have nuclear weapons also. This could cause other countries to rebel and soon our allies can become our enemies. Third of all the United States should stop working towards nuclear deterrence. Even though it's a nice thought it's never going to happen. Like the creator of nuclear weapons stated, "Once the secret is out there's no stopping it". Unfortunately that statement is true. Not all countries want to be pacifist, more want to dominate or in other words be world leaders. Overall there are 30,000 nuclear weapons remaining in the world. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it's enough to eliminate all mankind. When thinking of an invention that is harm to human life I have to say nuclear weapons for these main reason. One, it causes disputes between countries. Two, it harms our environment. Three, it destroys life.
Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

ok I agree, the first three rounds are the only rounds too look at but I would just like to point out that she never has offered any other inventions that are better, therefore all that we are debating is that it is a good invention, please take this into consideration as I have proven it is a good invention and a better invention than all of the ones that my opponent has offered which has been none. Thanks for this round Amanda, it was fun.