BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nature can't pull

Very interesting argument, but it has flaws you see, the universe as we know it completely balanced, equal, etc. Including; energy, atoms, mass and everything in between. You cannot create either of these fundamentals nor can you destroy it. For your theory of the universe is expanding I agree it is true, but eventually the velocity of the expansion will decay to the point of gravity will cause everything to start imploding which the effect of gravity is ever-constant and universal no matter how far the universe has expanded. The universe will eventually undergo another big bang as we know it, and repeat the process. Now back to your original statement which is gravity doesn't pull is not the real argument, the byproduct of mass and its effect on spacetime is that a vacuum like effect it has between bodies of mass. Nature or the universe or whatever term you may like to use likes to be balanced so for mass which in the perspective of spacetime is unnatural, so when it occurs that a mass appears on an area of spacetime the body of mass distorts it and the effect is relative to its mass proportionally. Spacetime therefore, likes to return to its original state kind of like a rubber band. The mechanism you seek is actually regarded to be a theory no matter how it's perceived its laws and effects are yet to be truly examined by humans. But to my understanding gravity or aether to me works more favorable as a fluid, an analogy would be say: imagine a surface of water (spacetime/aether) and on the surface are buoyant objects (we are imagining this on a 2d plane since its too complex and unnecessary to imagine on more planes) now if we were to drop a object of any mass into this water then all the buoyant objects would get drawn/carried (whether its getting pulled or pushed cannot be explained) towards the centre of which the object had been dropped since the surface has been distorted. Now imagine this but in real situations it is almost inconceivable but we must make the most of what we can understand, all in all its a matter of which mechanism seems more logical and which follows the known laws our predecessors have set before us. I agree on some of your points but the mechanism I believe in is gravity and the aether acts as a wave and is ever-present coexisting with spacetime. Taylor (1876)
Nature can't pull

According to Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt dark energy pushes, it doesn't pull. That is why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. When matter is created it displaces space which tries to push back. Its like pushing a marble into jelly. http://www.fbbva.es... This fits in with my theory - that aether particles are pushed together to create energy and matter at the same time. That's where the sun gets it energy from. The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle which has 3 states - left spin (negative), right spin (positive) and no spin (black-hole attractor).
Nature can't pull

I must confess it is possible for neither of us to be correct for that gravity is an extremely mysterious concept even today scholars and renowned researchers cannot yet understand the true mechanism behind such a force, perhaps it isn't force? We cant truly know for sure yet. Now for atmosphere to push down on us what if you built an underground bunker and there is no atmosphere to push down on say for example yourself and the only known effect is gravity. The whole solar system is drawn together by the sun (not limited to) so the suns atmosphere cannot possibly reach beyond Pluto surely. But you have a valid argument, I agree but not the most logical one I must confess.
Nature can't pull

OK, so gravity is pulling us down. That is what you call logic? 1. If that is the case, can you describe the mechanism by which this occurs? 2. Where are the gripping hooks located which hold down the sky, trees, rocks, animals and humans? 3. Where are the wires, ropes or chains which secure these hooks? Note - If there is no mechanism to describe your theory, then, I am afraid your theory is incorrect because my theory has a mechanism. Good luck!
Nature can't pull

For this argument I shall take the position against your statement. Now to save confusion I assume your concept is about the atmosphere pushing down on the object or being so that they stay on the large body or planet. Okay, based on that concept, In my opinion its totally nonsense to believe that is the sole reason of an object to stay on a planet is due the atmosphere or as you call it aether pushing down on it, respectively that is right to a point. Mercury, is the only planet in the solar system to not have an atmosphere yet its gravity is about the same as Mars or about a third of Earths of about 3.7m/p^2 so therefore, logically, the universal and more dominant reason an object is drawn to a large body or planet is due to gravity or more strictly speaking a body that's mass is large enough to draw other bodies towards it same vice versa. Not saying that the atmosphere doesn't push an object down which it does its effect isn't universal in all situations.
styrofoam

"well. .. .. .. first I would like to point out that the links my opponent provided could be FALSE because on wikipedia(sorry if I spelled this wrong) you can edit any page you want and also create a page on whatever you want. " All those links were really for was to show that the common usage of the word 'styrofoam' is actually to mean 'polystyrene foam'. It's kinda like saying "pass me a Kleenex" when you really want a tissue. Also, we are encouraged to provide links when we make assertions, and I'd suggest you do the same in future. Wikipedia was adequate for the information I was conveying. "second, I do realize that styrofoam is cheaper, is also very versatile but may I ask is all this worth this compared to what it will do to our planet home planet earth. styrofoam is not biodegradable. sorry if im a little vague on this next part but I do not have very much time there is no current way the get rid of styrofoam,the organisms the eat up the other trash that we put in landfills cannot eat styrofoam. if you are thinking that we can burn this styrofoam wrong burning it just makes it worse by releasing toxic gases. this takes me back to my question,Is the versatility of styrofoam worth destroying our planet? ?? ?? " My opponent's entire argument seems to be that because styrofoam is not biodegradable, that we should cease using it because doing so is damaging the planet. I have several counter-arguments: 1. In the grand scheme of the environment, landfills are our smallest problem. If we are going to spend time and money eliminating a source of environmental damage, it should be in eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, which are pretty much set to destroy the planet some time soon. Eliminating styrofoam would not only be costly (perhaps impossible at this stage), it would also be futile. Kinda like there being a building about to collapse and us working on fixing up the garden instead of the building supports. 2. Automobiles, coal-fired powerplants, cling wrap, used tyres, used solvents and their containers. These things all pose an equal or greater risk to the environment than styrofoam. Unfortunately, at this stage in time and our civilization, we can not afford to do without any of these things. The best we can do is minimize their use where possible, but with the global economic recession, the cheapest and unfortunately nastiest products are our best option. 3. Even if landfill was a major enough problem for researchers to spend time and money on, there are more intelligent ways to go about it than throwing it in a hole. With scrubbers and carbon-capture technology, we could indeed burn the styrofoam, with no adverse effects for the environment. As it is light-weight and compactible, perhaps we could compress tonnes of the stuff into a smaller volume, which would ease landfill issues. While I agree with my opponent's overall assertion that styrofoam is bad for the environment, to eliminate it as a product at this stage would be costly and impractical. At best, we can take measures to alleviate its impact on the environment, which I'm all for. Thanks to my opponent.
styrofoam

well.......first I would like to point out that the links my opponent provided could be FALSE because on wikipedia(sorry if I spelled this wrong) you can edit any page you want and also create a page on whatever you want. second, I do realize that styrofoam is cheaper, is also very versatile but may I ask is all this worth this compared to what it will do to our planet home planet earth. styrofoam is not biodegradable. sorry if im a little vague on this next part but I do not have very much time there is no current way the get rid of styrofoam,the organisms the eat up the other trash that we put in landfills cannot eat styrofoam. if you are thinking that we can burn this styrofoam wrong burning it just makes it worse by releasing toxic gases. this takes me back to my question,Is the versatility of styrofoam worth destroying our planet????? By the way I am not a green freak i just had good reasons on this topic.
styrofoam

The resolution title makes it clear that we are debating the merits of 'styrofoam'. As PRO, it will be my job to endorse styrofoam, and as CON, it will be my opponent's task to denounce it. With no further clarification, we can presume my opponent has used the word 'styrofoam' as a generic term for polystyrene foam, which is the common usage. [1] My opponent has provided only one argument thus far, which is that styrofoam is hurting the environment. We will apparently have to wait until next round to get any further clarification on this, so I will await my opponent's next round argument before I rebut. I will pose a few of my own arguments in favor of styrofoam: 1. It is versatile. Styrofoam can be used for heat insulation, industrial templates, household items such as disposable cutlery, packing protection for fragile objects. 2. It is cheap to make compared to the alternative materials necessary to make the aforementioned objects. I don't need to remind my opponent or the voters of the economic situation we are entering at present and its potential consequences. It is in these times where styrofoam and other cheap, versatile products will be essential. 3. It is light and compactible, and therefore cheap to transport. Once again, we are entering an economic recession where every cent will count. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prince Hans Is a Good Villain

Argument 1: His PersonalityPrince's Hans' personality was very weak. Everything we know about him from the first 2/3 of the movie was wrong. So what do we know about him? He's a liar... a god-modder... and... ummm.... that is it. If you remove the plot twist, he has nothing good about him. He could've been replaced easily. Jessie and James from Team Rocket could replace him and it wouldn't make much of a difference.Argument 2: Cliche Villain Monologue Prince Hans gave away all his information to Anna and left her alive. This is horribly cliche and is a lazy way to reveal his true side. Even An Extremely Goofy Movie which got a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes at least did better at this. The villains were overheard discussing their plans (which is cliche too, but not nearly as cliche.) rather than flat out saying it. In a movie with more complex characters like Elsa, it's shown their put a clear effort in this movie. So why is it that they must resort to cliches for Hans. This also brings a major plot hole into Frozen. How can somebody as clever as Hans fall for such a stupid trap? This is like walking off a cliff. You're bound to notice it. Sure you could say he was over confident, but still. It's so obvious, you can't miss it.Argument 3: Time As a VillainHis time as a villain was too short. He had 10 lines of dialogue then was beaten. No confrontation, no final battle, no nothing. Anna freezes, then Hans is out of the picture. Since he had little personality to begin with, no final showdown makes him not very memorable if it weren't for the twist.
Prince Hans Is a Good Villain

I will be starting a debate on whether Prince Hans from the movie Frozen was a well-designed villain or not.Rules:1. You may not rebut anything in the same round.2. Round 1 is acceptance only.3. No swearing.4. Pictures are discouraged, but if you must, keep it small.5. Wikipedia is a valid source.If you break any rules, you forfeit the debate. Voter Rules:1. You may not take off spelling and grammar because a debater quotes a spelling/grammar mistake an opponent made. 2. Read the ENTIRE debate before voting.
Prince Hans Is a Good Villain

Hans isn't lying about his back story. At the end of the movie when he is being detained. Let me quote the Captain of the Southern Isles Ship. “I will return this scoundrel to his country. We shall see what his twelve big brothers think of his behavior. ”R13;The French dignitary about Hans' punishment. Here you can see that The French Dignitary confirms that Prince Hans's story was indeed correct. No matter how many lines he had the matter of the fact that Prince Hans was very manipulative as he got the town's folk on his side by showing that he cared for them and interacted with them more than Elsa and Ana. Heck, he even fooled Elsa. My opponent also said that there was no foreshadowing in the movie, but once again my opponent is incorrect. During the song Love is an Open Door. Princess Ana believes that they had perfect chemistry, but in the line "We finish eachother's. ." "Sandwiches. ""That's what I was going to say. " It becomes obvious that they aren't really in love and aren't really meant to be and that Prince Hans really wasn't in love with Ana. Or in Ana's song For the First Time in Forever, she states, "For the first time in forever, nothing's in my way. " Then Prince Hans's horse runs into Ana forcing her into the boat. Her we can see that Prince Hans is going to be an obstacle for latter in the movie to Ana. I've already covered how Prince Hans was a villain from the beginning due to foreshadowing. Prince Hans was a very unique character due to his cleverness and his ploys he remained hidden and got popular support from the public of Arendelle. His plan was nearly fool proof and when Ana ran after Elsa she had a high probability of getting killed thus moving Prince Hans up the ladder and when Prince Hans blamed Elsa for Ana's death the other Royalty got behind the execution of Queen Elsa. It was foreshadowed from the beginning that Prince Hans and Ana weren't exactly going to be as tight as Ana thought. With that I thank you.
Prince Hans Is a Good Villain

I would like to apologize for not bringing up more points as I thought this was a five, not three round debate.Also if my full argument doesn't show, check this link for it.http://shrib.com...There's a few spelling errors from my opponent there, so I ask you don't deduct me for it.Like most evil villians you have to have a plot from the begining. Being the 13th in line for the crown of the Southern Isles Hans had no other option, but to marry into royalty. And there is one major problem with this. His backstory is merely glanced over. One line and barely mentioned again. He doesn't think about this or anything. For all we know, there's so little information, it could be that Hans was lying the whole time. His orginial plan was to marry Queen Elsa, but due to her isolationist nature that was out the window. Once again, this too was glanced over. One line spewed out along with a bunch of other stuff and that's considered a story.
Prince Hans Is a Good Villain

As per rules I cannot refute this round as it is conentions only.Contention 1: Hans had a plot from the begining. Like most evil villians you have to have a plot from the begining. Being the 13th in line for the crown of the Southern Isles Hans had no other option, but to marry into royalty. His orginial plan was to marry Queen Elsa, but due to her isolationist nature that was out the window. He planned that he would then stage an accident to kill Elsa. Then Princes Anna fell in love with Prince Hans the day they met and wanted to get married. He would then kill Elsa and become king, but Anna ran after Elsa with a high probability of death which would put Hans in a great spot to then be king. (http://disney.wikia.com...)Contention 2: Hans got support from the public.When Anna left to go after Queen Elsa she left Prince Hans in charge. He gathered massive public support as he interacted with the commaner making sure they were warm. If a quarrl ever occured the public would support Hans as he cared for the public personally vs. Elsa and Anna who both were locked away in the castle for years on end. Contention 3: Prince Hans appealed to Queen ElsaPrince Hans saved Queen Elsa from a Wesleton crossbow shot. On top of that he gained her trust by saying that he would stand up for her and do what he could, but it might not what since the others didn't trust her. She believed this based on the reactions were when her powers were discovered. When she was running away Queen Elsa told Prince Hans to take care of Anna. Leaving her sister to someone she just met.
There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, Such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, The number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero. Indeed, A study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1, 100 sexual assaults, In only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense. The data, Moreover, Do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use " the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, Struggling) and some with lower (for example, Running away). Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal, The victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, Compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon " Mace, For instance " appeared equally effective as using a gun. Almost two-thirds of the people in the U. S. Population live in homes without guns, And there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, Injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, But also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide. In addition, Hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high. That is why physician organizations " who care about your health and often see firsthand the harmful effects of firearms " suggest that you very carefully weigh the actual costs and benefits before bringing a lethal weapon into your home. Guns do not save lives, They KILL PEOPLE, Get rid of guns and the senseless killings will go down. The 2'nd Amendment needs to be removed from the constitution. Guns should be illegal like they are in most countries. Like Canada where the guns are prohibited, The crime rate is 90% lower then in the USA. Case closed (mic drop)
There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

Please no name calling. I am not a hillbilly. You assert that guns are killing tools. Americans purchase guns for defense, Sport, And to protect their property. You're right, Knives are intended for and mostly used to cut food, So they are not killing tools, But that means guns are intended for defense and sport and are mostly used for this [. https://wapo. St. . . ], So they are not killing machines. Guns are used for defense frequently. The CDC, National Academies" Institute of Medicine, And National Research Council concluded that defensive gun uses by victims range from 500, 000 to 3 million each year [. https://www. Forbes. Com. . . ]. The CDC also estimates about 498, 000 burglaries and break-ins were stopped by defensive gun use [. https://thenewstalkers. Com. . . ]. Guns are sure to have stopped rape and assault as well. A study by the National Academies' came up with "an estimate of 162, 000 cases per year where someone almost certainly would have been killed if they had not used a gun for protection" [. https://www. Forbes. Com. . . ] compared to roughly 10, 000 gun homicides per year (the FBI Bureau of Statistics) [. https://ucr. Fbi. Gov. . . ]. Gun Ban? When D. C. Instituted the ban, Their rate of about 27 Homicides and Non-Negligible Manslaughters per 100, 000 people became 80+, And when the ban was struck down, Their homicide rate reached lows [. http://www. Factandmyth. Com. . . ]. Great Britain banned guns, And their homicide rate went from 1. 16 to 1. 8. In Ireland, . 7 became 1. 13 over 45 years [. https://mises. Org. . . ]. As for your study that speaks of states, The Washington-Post claims just the opposite [. https://www. Washingtonpost. Com. . . ]. If that's not good enough, The FBI shows a downward trend in the homicide rate as state gun ownership increases [. https://medium. Com. . . ]. Let's talk about burglaries. Since the U. S. Has so many guns, There are significantly less burglaries while people are at home (13%) than in countries like Canada (44%) and Great Britain (95%) [. http://davekopel. Org. . . ]. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that suggests restrictive gun measures will have no positive effect.