BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa

It seems like my co-debater is afraid, or has little or no argument to present..but thats not withstanding, like i earlier said, there are some pressing needs which needs assistant before considering the dictators of a thing..now ponder on this, ghana as a nation do not boosting economy, and why won't there be developmental assistant first before considering other bad goverment like that of dictators? Indeed, developmental aids should be considered first
Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa

The economist who wrote the topic scale of preference and opportunity cost should be well rewarded for the great thing he did because he explained that things are arranged in order of importance..to start with, this is my stand on this motion 'since there are more pressing needs than that of military dictators, then developmental arrivance should be encouraged first' because when we clearly look at this issues, we would find out that there are more pressing needs which supersedes military aid like that of poverty which has been the cankerworm that is retarding the pace of mali's developmental effort and this needs to be solved before even looking at the military aid or what so ever it maybe called..on 16 april 2o13,the punch newspaper carried it that mali as a country is starving and they need help from the world power, and other neighbouring states so my question is this, should hungry people be fighting military dictators? Indeed we should first tackle the issue of poverty in the nation first before talking of military dictators governing them..moreover, take Nigeria for instance, nigeria has a whole lot of problem like the water scarcity, lack of good roads,i.e lack of infrastructural development, not to mention but few and yet instead of fighting this ones that can be easily achieved, we now need to fight military dictators it is impossible...NIGERIA needs help in terms of development just as mali more than that of military aid because its problem supersedes the military issue and the military issue is not a fight to finish but a day..the con, has committed the fallacy of 'NON SEQUITUR' Which means it does not follow for even highlighting the problems of military aid in mali but he has failed equally to understand that the more help been granted in the pace of development, will even help the citizens bring democracy..I never said military aid is good but what I strongly believe is this, that third world countries like mali, Nigeria, ghana, and rest, have problem to tackle and needs more help than that of military whatever..I REST MY CASE
Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa

I admit it, but i still beg to disagree with you on this motion..it is quite unfortunate that you are somehow speaking against yourself on this motion miss..please don't misunderstand the theory of nigeria's poverty and its origin.. To start with, nigeria's problem can never be linked to that of military infact, check their last two president they are never related to military or something of that nature rather their problem is corruption and bad leadership by civilians. So don't misunderstand me please..lets ask ourselves, the insurgent acts which has chased away almost all the companies that are investing in nigeria is it from the military aid? The answer is No it is due to ethnicity which lead to boko haram menace and has retarded the pace of their development..in that same country, the unemployment issue is high, in a state there, they have 77.7% unemployment rate and yet you still insist that military aid should be looked at first? Talk of their economy which is where i will emphasize on, they have deficit balance of payment as it was recorded by the cnn on 7th may 2o13..let me not base in nigeria as a point of reference, lets clearly look at ethiopia.the lack good infrastructure they only have palm oil as their major source of economic bouyancy and what you are telling readers is that they should look at military aid first? This third world countries need assistance in all ramification first before talking about the military aid..now when i use philosophy words and explain it, don't call it novice rather call it that you do not understand
Astronomy is the most interesting branch of science

Astronomy is the most interesting branch of science because there's many wonders in the universe. According to eso.org/public/science/top10 after more than 1,000 nights of observation at La Silla spread over 15 years, astronomers have determined the motions of more than 14,000 solar-like stars residing in the neighborhood of the sun, showing that our home galaxy has led a much more turbulent and chaotic life than previously assumed. This evidence is important because it shows that our galaxy is explosive and confusing. I remember when I was studying astronomy in the fourth grade. It was right after we learned about biology. When we was learning about space I said to myself this is easier and more interesting than biology. I loved it when I learned about the different types of galaxies that are in the universe. This shows that astronomy is more interesting and surprisingly easy to learn about. Astronomy is the most interesting branch of science because there's a lot to learn about in the universe.
Aliens Have Probably not visited Earth

All arguments extended. Also, since Earth is likely 8000 cubic light years away from any other technological civilization, they would be seeing Earth 8000 years in the past, were not much in the way of human civilization existed. The only reason the aliens would have to come to earth is it's atmosphere, fauna and flora, and water, but these things are relatively common in the Galaxy, according to the video above. It really was a shame that Con forfeited all his rounds.
Aliens Have Probably not visited Earth

I will be starting of my debate with this problem: volume. The volume of the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to be about 8 trillion cubic light years. According to Carl Sagan, a renown astronomer, there might be a million, or ten technological civilizations in the Milky Way, technological meaning that they have radios. So, there would be about 1 technological civilization every 8000 cubic light years. By the way, a cubic light year is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 cubic kilometers. The chances of a technological civilization deciding to go to our star out of the 3 billion stars in the Milky Way are astronomical. Also the chances of a civilization that sees our sun and takes note of it, the chances of that civilization being able to cross thousands of light years are even more huge. Sources: https://plus.google.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.google.com...
Light, Fluffy Snow is better than Wet, Heavy Snow

"If I said it was easier for me to ski in light, fluffy snow doesn't that generally make it true unless you are stalking me, watching my every turn?" i meant to say that because my opponent is obviously a great skier because of his many different skiing accomplishments, he does not know how much more less experienced skiers love wet and heavier snow. for example as i said in my first arguments wet snow is much easier to stop in compared to light fluffy snow because of the lack of weight it can stop. i dont know about my opponent but im not very good at stopping just yet and i like it if i can stop when i want to and not a few moments after because then it might be too late. the reason that this is true is common sense, if something if heavier it is easier to stop if you put your weight on it . its just like would you rather lean on a barrier made of straw or one made of wood, dont make the stupid decision. light snow does in fact melt faster than wet snow because it makes the snow warmer that much faster. believe me i live in canada and i get snow a lot. furthermore, when salt is sprinkled along the roads on snow the wet snow takes in the salt much faster than the light and dry snow so consequently the wet snow melts much slower. it melts much faster because there are spaces between the snow particles that act as small insulation. i also meant that because of high winds picking up the light dry snow much easier than the wet snow many people have been blinded because of the snow attacking their vision. another example of how wet snow is safer is the fact that when driving the dry snow takes much longer to come down then the wet snow and as a result may cause the windshield to be covered in white resulting in the lack of sight when driving. furthemore, when one is walking in a snow storm they can be covered in snow even though it is rare except for in antartica where there is a very small amount of moisture in the snow so it is able to fly around and blind and sufficate people much easier. lastly when kids are having they dont really care about being wet or whatnot or else a lot of them would not do many of the things which they enjoy doing. for example playing in the rain or playing in mud or any other childhood antics which bring a smile to everyone's face. furthermore, what is the point of throwing a snow ball if the person cant feel it its like saying that we should have guns for protection that dont hurt people ????? it just doesnt make sense oh and lastly my opponent and i have almost forgotten to define this debate so i shall do it neutrally and fairly, we define the light fluffy snow, as dry snow that is light and fluffy, we define wet snow as snow with more moisture. thanks for starting this debate and im not sure if i broke any rules because this is my first debate if there are any i broke can you please comment on my debate.
Light, Fluffy Snow is better than Wet, Heavy Snow

"my opponent has stated in his first rebuttal of my point that it is easier for him to ski in light and fluffy snow, however it is not true." -If I said it was easier for me to ski in light, fluffy snow doesn't that generally make it true unless you are stalking me, watching my every turn? "furthermore, i would also like to ask him if it is harder to stop in light snow or wet more heavy snow." -Light snow is easier to stop in. Plain and simple. If it wasn't easier to stop in I would have taken up the con side to this debate. "light snow can also melt much more quickly then wet snow and consequently turn into ice much more quickly" -Wet snow already has a higher water content than light, fluffy (aka dry) snow. This means that it is already closer to it's melting point and will melt faster than light, fluffy snow. It may appear that light fluffy snow melts faster because it shrinks more but, this is due to the fact that its water content is much less. As the sun hits light, fluffy snow it turns into wet, heavy snow; thus proving my point. "light snow is much more dangerous...blind a person and make them unable to breath with the high amount of snow" -I'll agree that light snow can create whiteout conditions more easily in heavy winds, but I have never seen snow make a person unable to breath because it was so thick. Snow can't prevent you from breathing unless you are buried under it. Furthermore, more dangerous whiteout conditions occur when wet, heavy snow is falling on roadways than when light, fluffy snow falls on roadways. -Moist snow is great for making snowballs, but wet, heavy snow makes your gloves wet and hurts when you are hit by it. It's almost like taking a bunch of water, slightly freezing it, and putting it into a water balloon. It just hurts. Given the evidence above it is easy to see that light, fluffy snow is better than wet, heavy snow. Thank you for accepting this debate. I enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading more of your Debate.org debates.
Light, Fluffy Snow is better than Wet, Heavy Snow

my opponent has stated in his first rebuttal of my point that it is easier for him to ski in light and fluffy snow, however it is not true. he has obviously been an accomplished and gifted skier so he knows what is easier for him to ski in however being one of the less talented skiers me and my friends have not enjoyed the light fluffy and dry snow. first of all it is indeed harder to stop in because when one is going down a slope at their breakneck speed it is usually harder to stop in the light snow because of the lack of weight. it is easier to stop in the wet snow because unlike the dry light snow it is heavier and consequently easier to stop in. furthermore, the light fluffy snow is unliked by many skiers because it does get everywhere instead of the wet and heavier snow which stays on the ground. furthermore, id like to ask my opponent a question regarding skiing and it is if they enjoy skiing in artificial man-made snow ? furthermore, i would also like to ask him if it is harder to stop in light snow or wet more heavy snow. my second point is that light snow does cause more hazards because as my opponent agrees with me it is difficult gauge how deep it actually is furthermore, light snow can also melt much more quickly then wet snow and consequently turn into ice much more quickly. for example, most of the snow which melting is the light fluffy snow because of the added air between the snow molecules which adds warmth to the surrounding snow. this is true because of common sense and science because the more air between the molecules the more they move resulting in heat and melting of the snow. furthermore, the wet heavier snow is much easier to spread salt in them resulting in a less of a chance for them to turn into ice. the wet snow absorbs the salt much easier than the dry snow. another reason why dry and light snow is much more dangerous is the fact that once there is high wind it picks up much easier than heavier snow and as a result it is able to blind a person and make them unable to breath with the high amount of snow. my last point is that the wet snow is much easier to play with because it packs together much more easier, even my opponent said that the wet snow was easier to pack into snowballs than the dry snow. and most children being the people they are are impatient and do not enjoy packing together light fluffy snowballs and in return throw them just to see them disintegrate in midair. furthermore, the wet snow does not impact you that much if you are like any other semi intelligent person and decides to wear a coat and snow pants of the winter and when you are playing with snow. it is for these reasons that this res light fluffy snow is better than wet, heavy snow must and will fall
Light, Fluffy Snow is better than Wet, Heavy Snow

this resolution light,fluffy snow is better than wet, heavy snow is obviously false for the following three reasons being that this person has obviously never gone skiing before, fluffy snow is a hazard to people, and it is much harder to pack a snowball and do many of the fun things that we do today with light and fluffy snow. 1. skiing being an avid skiier myself i know the difference between skiing in light snow and skiing in wet snow because when one skis in light snow it is a pain. for example, the fluffy snow is famous for getting in the miscellaneous clothing parts of people while they ski. for example, because of the light snow i usually go home with wet socks and ski boots. furthermore, when people are skiing they usually enjoy stopping when they are out of control. with light and fluffy snow it is really hard to ski because you are unable to stop. using the slightly harder and more heavy wet snow, stopping is much easier. 2. fluffy snow is a hazard fluffy snow is a hazard because when people are walking in the trails after a snowfall, they might find themselves burried in snow because they are unable to gauge what the depth of the snow is. furthermore, they might not be able to pull themselves out and die from overexposure. wet snow is much better because it usually is able to take the weight of a person for a certain amount of time. another reason why fluffy snow is a hazard is because it turns into ice much more faster than the wet and heavy snow believe it or not. i live in Canada so i am aware of this and the snow melts much faster. 3.playing playing with snow is every child's dream no matter where they come from. when they build their snowballs and snowmen light fluffy and dry snow is really hard to build sculptures with. for example, when i was young i would love to make snowballs and throw them at people, and i still do, however when there is light and dry snow i am always sad because i am unable to do such a thing because the snow does not pack together very well. furthermore, this snow makes a child frustrated because they have so much snow to use but it doesnt work at all therefore, this res must and will stand for these three reasons
Light, Fluffy Snow is better than Wet, Heavy Snow

When the average person imagines a beautiful snowfall they picture light, fluffy flakes gently falling from the sky and coming to rest on the bare ground much like powdered sugar would cover a cake. They picture themselves going outside with their arms outstretched and mouths wide open, catching the graceful snowflakes on their tongues. They DO NOT picture a heavy wet snow cascading down from the sky, soaking their clothing and making travel impossible. Giving the imagery presented above it is easy to see that light, fluffy snow is better than wet, heavy snow. It is more enjoyable, easier to deal with, and more fun to be outside in. It is also much more pleasurable sitting inside in front of a fire watching these light fluffy flakes than sitting inside and watching almost rain like snow soaking anything it comes in contact with.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

‘how could you comprehend the question without prior knowledge’ It’s quite easily possible and there are a plethora of cases which would prove it. Let’s say, for example, the question is to find the number of water molecules in a litre of water, any layman would be able to understand the question in this scenario but to actually know the answer one should know the concept and the formula involved and should have a basic level of arithmetic skills to solve the math. Thus, comprehending the question, is NOT the answer to the question. The resolution has been successfully negated.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

PRO hasn't yet validated his claim of getting answers to questions by comprehending the question itself.I hence will make a constructive case on my own supporting my stance, since I don't see any signs of PRO making one. So let's start by asking ourselves what the necessaary requirements for answering any question are. Even though comprehending the question is the starting step for getting the answer it isn't the SOLUTION to getting the answer as PRO claims. What is required is prior knowledge and specific skills depending on the type of problem presented. For example a question concerning mathematics would require you to have knowledge of the concept involved in the question and an appropriate level aptitude skill. So to summarise, Comprehending the quesion 'is not the' answer to the question. Comprehending the question + Prior knowledge about the subject + Certain specific skills is what is needed to get the answer to questions. Over to you PRO.
100 debate Challenge 3: This House believes reality television does more harm than good

Bad Rolemodels- Reality television Makes people celebrities for "Just being themselves". There is no real reason why Paris Hylton and Kim Kardashian are stars, and the message we send to young people is that if you "Just be yourself" you can be a star. This is a horrible message adolescents and kids are getting the message that hard work and learning a valuable skill isn't important. This can have devastating financial repercussionns later on in life as well as set a person up for a life of poverty. Teaching people that hard work and learning aren't important isn't the only bad things that reality shows do. Young girls see these women on television and the comments made about them on the internet about there body and get this message that body image is extremely important. It's been shown in the American journal of health and medicine that when girls consume a lot of media wich makes such a big deal of body image they are more likely to develop an eating disorder. "A study recently published in the American Journal of Health and Educationn showed that women who read health and fitness magazines were significantly more likely to have practiced unhealthy weight control methods than were moderate or infrequent readers, says Steven Thomsen, Ph.D., the study's author and an associate communications professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Nearly 80 percent of frequent readers had induced vomiting, 73 percent had taken diet pills and 60 percent had used laxatives. And women who limited their daily caloric intake read health and fitness magazines more frequently than those who did not restrict their diets." http://www.psychologytoday.com... Reality television beside encouraging laziness and eating diorders also corrupts. The things people subject themselves to affects the way they think. A person watching Joe Millionaire where contestants compete with each other for ome construction worker posing as a millionaire promotes lying and beyond that it treats the contestants feelings as unimportant and completely diposable. These shows don't care if they ruin the contestants or the viewers lives. Conclusion- Reality shows hurt contestants and participants by treating their feelings as disposable, destroying their personal lives and turning them into villains. It also serves to encourage eating disorders, teen pregnancy and encourages tossing away good values like hard work and education. Even if you want to argue they do know harm (which I would strongly object to), the fact they are clogging up the airwaves where good educational programs could be instead creates harm in and of it's self.
Dragons are better than pigs

In the final round, my opponent has decided to drop everything and say that he didn't "understand anything" I'm saying. Also, for some reason, my opponent believes in dragons, parallel universes, and gets his information from How to Train Your Dragon, a fake and mediocre movie.Finally, he decides to call me weird because I don't believe in dragons.All of my opponent's contentions have been refuted by the point that dragon's don't exist. I have refuted everything my opponent has said as his arguments are childish assumptions without evidence. It is very clear that since pigs exist, they are better than dragons which don't exist. This is an extremely easy vote CON.Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and DDO!