BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

In this debate, my opponent has claimed multiple times in this debate that HAARP caused Hurricane Katrina (and Sandy). However, as I have pointed out there is no evidence for this. My opponent however disagrees and quotes the Chemtrails (conspiracy theory) website as proof. I mean a website that is named after one of the most absurd conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously at all. The next source of information is from the Disclosure project, who believe UFOs are running free all over the planet. However, just like Chemtrails they have zero evidence for this claim. As such the sources presented as proof by my opponent fail. Regarding the NASA source, I am not sure why my opponent says this disagree with my citations as it in fact agrees with my stance that lightening can occur in a Hurricane. It even says “"Generally there's not a lot of lightning in the eye-wall region," he says. ” Not a lot means, there is but this was just more than normal. Another important point my opponent keeps alluding to is the increased HAARP activity that occurred during Hurricane Katrina. However, as I pointed out these maps do not come from official sources but conspiracy websites. Additionally, even if this data was true (which I doubt) correlation does not imply causation. My opponent needed to show that there was a direct cause to prove that HAARP created Hurricane Katrina. In contrast in this debate I showed that lightening can occur in Hurricanes as it is self containing. I showed that Hurricane Katrina formed under normal circumstances in the Bahamas. I also showed that it is highly unlikely that this is a conspiracy theory as HAARP has existed for a long time (1993) and yet no leaked information has come out that shows HAARP can alter the weather. Additionally, if it could alter the weather so well and create all these natural disasters that could be used as a weapon, then why is the program off-line and not ever restarting? As such I have shown in this debate that Hurrican Katrina formed like any other Hurricane and was not created as claimed by my opponent. This is all I needed to do to win this debate. Now I hand the debate over to my opponent.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

Contention 1: Tesla and HAARP My opponent is incorrect. In 1957, the US military reported success using Telsa's theory of shooting 'beams' into the ionsphere to control the weather. (. http://chemtrailsplanet.net...) I have also posted the link to the video that it is in and the historical evidence called Holes in Heaven- Secreate Telsa technology. () I am unsure if it will pop open as a youtube video. If not I have provided the link. I will address HAARP's weather changing abilities in my next contention. Contention 2: HAARP caused Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy I will first provide pictures of what happens when HAARP is turned on/online. From the above pictures we can see how HAARP can control weather and how it has created holes across the nation. To add that my opponent has also dropped my evidence showing HAARP's activity compared to both storms. We can see that HAARP has a part to play in this. Then with my opponent dropping my evidence about HAARP creating both storms (which I'll extend across the board) we can see that there is plenty of evidence there. I extend my Hurricane Electircal argument as it was from NASA my source trumps my opponent's as I have provided a scholary source and an author to go with it. Contention 3: The motive My opponent says that he will not argue until I prove that HAARP can alter weather. I have so I will extend this argument across the board. My opponent has dropped his own contentions so I'll extend those arguments across the board. In conclusion, I have provided photographic proof of HAARP's actions and that they have caused Hurricane Katrina. My opponent has dropped his own contentions so I can see no other way to vote in this debate, but Pro.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

First I'd like to clarify that last round I said Rodchester and meant Westchester. My bad. Contention 1: Katrina's formationThis is the major part in this debate. Hurricane Katrina actually began to die off when it passed over Flordia, but once it enters the Gulf of Mexico the Tropical Strom then turns back into a Hurricane and grows stronger and stronger. (http://www.ldi.state.la.us...) I give you this graph showing HAARP's very active buisness towards the end of Katrina. Some of these readings are off the charts and I currently cannot find one of during Katrina only the beginning and end, but when we see the ending's significanly off the charts we can only see that it has to be catistropic. Contention 2: Conspiracies don't stay burried. There have been hundreds of conspiracies over the years that people have argued about like 9/11, the moon landing, the Prime Minister from New Zealand being a retile alien (he actually had to go to the doctor to get evidence that he wasn't an alien (http://www.buzzfeed.com...), the War on Terror, the Nixon-JFK election, the list can go on and on. There are even modern conspiracies like Newtown and more, but we don't have the time nor the character limit to get into it at the moment. My opponent says that WMD's were not found in Iraq, but I beg to differ in the city of Al-Qa'im there is a fertalizer plant. The funny thing about this fertalizer plant is that the fertilizer that is produced their only works on Western European soil not Middle Eastern. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'im_(town)) So what's so special about fertalizer you may ask? It's that throughout Iraq, Marines have reported finding bags of fertalizer in bunkers next to empty mortar shells. This was to be used for as chemical weaponry.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

Thanks to my opponent for their opening argument, I look forward to rebutting it in the next round. In this round of the debate I am going to show that the natural disaster Hurricane Katrina was not a conspiracy. History Hurricane Katrina was a category five hurricane (157 mph+ wind speeds) that had reduced in strength to a category three hurricane (winds of 111-129 mph) when it eventually made landfall in the Gulf Coast.(1,2) According to these categories a category three storm will cause “Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.” However, as we now know the devastating damage was worsened by the failure of Levee's in New Orleans which resulted in further loss of life as the city descended into chaos. This chaos is attributed to many things, such as; people not being able to be evacuated, rioting, sanitation, supply problems, etc.(3) How did it form? Hurricane Katrina formed initially as a tropical depression in the Bahamas, then this tropical depression strengthened into a full Tropical storm which moved westward and eventually made landfall over South Florida where it weakened, however then when it entered the Gulf of Mexico it strengthened again before it made landfall a second time.(4) http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="475" height="293" /> A tropical depression can form when a tropical wave changes into a closed circulation system. When this happens either the depression can dissipate or it can acquire more energy from the warm sea and become stronger until it becomes a closed circulation system with very strong winds that we call a Hurricane or Typhoon.(5) http://earthsci.org...; /> The fact are that there is satellite imagery and scientific theories which can explain the formation of Hurricane Katrina, and this evidence does not point to any conspiracy. In fact, these theories are so well tested that nowadays we are able to predict a Hurricanes path with a certain degree of accuracy.(6) Conspiracies don't stay buried Hurricane Katrina happened in August of 2005, which means this natural disaster happened 9 years ago. Yet there is no hard evidence that can point towards any conspiracy about Hurricane Katrina been organized by one or more people. In contrast if we look at other attempted cover-ups we find that usually they are exposed far quicker with significant evidence. For example, Watergate or the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(7,8) As such it seems highly improbable that Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy as something would surely have leaked out by now, especially considering how many people died in this disaster. I now hand the debate back to my opponent for rebuttals. (1) http://www.nhc.noaa.gov... (2) http://www.history.com... (3) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (4) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... (5) http://www.hurricaneville.com... (6) http://www.wunderground.com... (7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (8) http://www.history.com...
We date people based on their looks

If we take the Married at First sight couples as an example, We can see that not all relationships that start off like that end well. Here, Https://www. Intouchweekly. Com/posts/married-at-first-sight-still-married-127836 you can find that most of these couples ended up divorcing, Not knowing that the other was hiding something or just didn't click at all. I know, This isn't about marriage, Its about dating, But we can see that love at first sight doesn't end that well. Of course, Some of these people found the other unattractive. It's like the typical situation where the nice girl falls for the "f-boy" not knowing that a "nerd" is in love with her. The girl realizes that she doesn't want to be with that guy anymore and goes with the "nerd" noticing that she is happier
We date people based on their looks

I do agree with the component that a part of being attracted to a certain individual is personality, But that's what follows later on in the relationship. In most cases we are attracted to individuals based on their physical presentation because that's the only way we can identify someone emotionally without personally knowing them at first. Also, Why are there so many quotations on how people fell in love at first sight or how they took a first glance at their partner knowing they were the most beautiful thing they seen.
We date people based on their looks

I believe that after a certain age, You don't really care about how your partner looks. I am 18 years old and I have dated someone who wasn't physically attractive, But I still liked that person. He made me feel better about myself, Showed that he truly cared about me, And he was super romantic. I fell in love with who he was. When we're younger, We tend to look at the physical, But as we grow older, Our standards change. Maybe it's because you want to get married already or because you learned so many different things. That's what happened to me.
killing for pleasure is wrong!

I will set this debate up by saying that the burden is on the pro to do two things One, to prove all cases because it does not specify with the words "on balance" Two, to prove that it is impossible for killing for pleasure to be not wrong. If I can prove that there is a possibility of murder for pleasure being not wrong, then I win because pro needs to prove all cases. We should adopt a utilitarian framework. When we examine utilitarian calculus, which takes into account happiness, it is easy to see that killing for pleasure is not wrong. Contention 1: More happiness could be gained by the murder than lost In a situation in which the murderer gains pleasure, which is what this resolution limits us to, we can see there is already a happiness gain. Then, if the victim is miserable, we can see that misery would be no longer in existence. This means that a positive is gained while minimizing the harm of misery. So, it is possible that the happiness gained and the victim being taken out of his/her misery outweighs other impacts Contention 2: We can't know if it is wrong under a utilitarian framework We can't quantify happiness. We don't know that the victim's loss is greater than the murderer's gain. So, we can't safely affirm so to speak. Thus, you negate.
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Resolution===The resolution for this debate will deal with anarchism and whether it would have a legitimate possibility of effectively and qualitatively providing various social services which are generally recognized as necessary for the existence of civil society.In this debate, Pro is tasked with establishing a general framework for the effective production of these services (as well as their plausibility, just saying it's possible that everyone would get along is insufficient) while also refuting Con's arguments. Con's burden is to both attempt to refute Pro's framework, as well as to forward and defend one or more compelling objections to anarchism.===Definitions===Anarchism in the scope of this debate does not concur with the vulgar use of the term (referring to chaos or lawlessness), but instead with the political philosophy advocating a form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services. More specifically, I will be defending free market anarchism[1] when non-institutional specifics are brought up.The term State refers to an institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery). Aside from monocentric control of the provision of these services, a State also has the power to tax the inhabitants under its control.A compelling objection in this instance will refer to an objection levelled against anarchism which shows it to be incapable of providing necessary social services (such as law and order) effectively or qualitatively. I don't think Con will be guilty of this but just in case, an argument along the lines of saying that some service X would be 5% more efficient then anarchist service X wouldn't be considered compelling. The term compelling implies a strong difference between the respective provision of the given services which sways strongly in the State's favor. From this it follows that if States are just as incapable of providing said service, it wouldn't count as a unique argument against anarchism as such.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.Due to the unique nature of the resolution, I ask that Con list their objections to anarchism in the acceptance round (with or without an argument to support them). I ask this because I don't want to list a prima facie case for anarchism in R2 only to have Con come up with a totally unrelated counter. I would much rather cut right to the core of Con's objections to start.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The subject of Casey Anthony on National News

Honestly, who cares about Casey Anthony? Anyone? Who is she? Why is she on national news? She killed her daughter, yes that's a terrible thing, but there's stuff like this that happens every day! What makes this situation so special? Ill tell you what, NOTHING! She was an average citizen before all this crap came out about her. Now she has all of a sudden become a national celebrity for killing her daughter! Seriously? Has the world come to this? It takes killing someone to become a celebrity? PLEASE! Our country needs to learn what real news is, and what news people will actualy care about!
football or baseball

A argument that i think my opponent would have used would be: Football requires more athletics. In my final statement I will disprove these things. Point 1: Football > Baseball Athletics (False) Both sports require hours of vigorous training and work. When you are playing football you warm up on the field before the game. Much like the pitcher warming up in the bullpen before his turn. There is a whole area dedicated to warming up your team in football called the "Post Season". Much like baseballs "Spring Training". Quarterbacks throw footballs and receivers practice catching them. This can be used as another example by saying pitchers practice throwing and fielders practice catching. In the end this shows that baseball requires the same amount of training as football. His main statement was that "Baseball is for losers." When in fact baseball has produced such people as: Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Lou Gehrig, and Alex Rodriguez. Conclusion: Football = Baseball Athletics It is for these reasons that I believe baseball is better than football.
Animals should only have rights it is in our interest to give them.

Okay. Your title states, "Animals should only have rights it is in our interest to give them." The syntax of this statement would suggest that you believe it is in our interest to to give Animals rights. Your opening statement suggests that the only relevant factor in giving them rights is our self-interest. Hence, I stated, "I'm a little unsure." There's nothing imprudent about using a debate round to clear this up. And now that we have cleared it up, I don't disagree with you; therefore, our debate is over.
Animals should only have rights it is in our interest to give them.

I think you may have misunderstood the position of this debate. It isn"t "whether" it is in our self interest to acknowledge or grant animals rights. That"s a separate topic entirely. I"m arguing that our self-interest should be the only factor that determines how we treat animals. If it turns out that it is in our self-interest to grant them rights, then that"s all very well, but it"s not what this debate is about. As for what I expect from the opponent, I"d hoped for an opinion. I said in round one that I wanted someone who would give an alternate account of animal rights. Whether your position is that the rights are "given" but we have good moral reasons to do so, or that they have inherent natural rights that we need only to acknowledge, is fine by me. However, you haven"t given your position on animal rights at all, so I can"t know what to focus on for this round. Perhaps I should have been clearer about what I intended in round one (I"m new to this, apologies), but in future if you don"t understand what I mean, ask in the comments rather than taking up a round with these questions. So I"m arguing that our self-interest should be the factor determining how we treat animals. As you noticed, the position clearly implies I don"t believe animals have objective natural rights, though if you believe they do then argue that. With regards to natural rights, someone who believes in them would have to provide an explanation of where they arise from and what things are capable of having them. Commonly, one will either do this by tying rights to cognitive ability, e.g. a dog has more rights than a cockroach which has more rights than a plant. Alternatively, you could claim that all living things have equal natural rights. Both of these require an explanation for why we should assume them, and I argue that there is no convincing explanation. Rights typically involve the ability to make a claim to something. For example, if I have a right to property, I could claim that property. What seems clear here is that these rights can only exist within a community of rational moral agents. An animal is not capable of making a claim and so it makes no sense to think of them as having rights. Similarly, rights tend to come with corresponding duties. For example, if you have a right to a piece of property I am holding, I have a moral duty to give it to you if you claim it. An animal can have no moral duties to us, and so it can have no rights either. Lastly, if an animal has no natural rights, then we have no reason to grant it any arbitrary legal rights unless doing so ultimately serves our interest.
Animals should only have rights it is in our interest to give them.

I'm a little unsure of what you expect from the opposing argument. Nevertheless. I will address the issue you brought up, i.e. whether it's in our self-interest to grant or acknowledge the rights of animals who aren't homo sapiens. First and foremost, the right is a moral concept which establishes a condition in which we ought to live. It is a rationalization of our environment and our interactions with in it. Now since you specifically suggested that we "give them" rights as opposed to acknowledging a natural right, you're essentially referring to a privilege subject to legal referendum. Whether granting these privileges will provide some benefit, we have as of yet to be illuminated. I suppose that's where you come in: what are these proposed benefits? I'll continue once you make that clear.
Animals should only have rights it is in our interest to give them.

In this debate I shall argue that when deciding how we are permitted to treat animals, the only relevant factor should be whether the rights we give them are in our self-interest. The debate will be three rounds, so please don't add any completely new points in the third round. I believe the burden of proof to be on the person asserting that we have other reasons for granting animals rights other than that it helps us, so feel free to give arguments in round one. If you really disagree with this point, mention why in your round one statement but I don't want to get drawn into debating that, so preferably accept this debate only if you're willing to start by offering a case for animal rights. Thanks to my opponent, and hopefully we shall both learn something from the debate.
the instigator always has a disadvantage against contender

Yes these definitions are fine. Even in this debate I have a disadvantage. All contenders post their final argument that breaks through the instigator's reasons. But from the perspective of the instigator, even their final argument can be refuted. Contenders often ask voters to discount the comments section from the debate, so instigator is always at a big loss, for there can't be no perfect argument unless the resolution was not a debatable topic
the instigator always has a disadvantage against contender

I accept.I'd like to propose the following definitions:Instigator - the person who starts the debate.Always - in all situations.Disadvantage - A situation in which the chance of winning is unfavourable to the instigator, i.e. the chance of winning is uneven after removing differences in debating prowess, strength of the arguments, spelling and grammar, and other aspects on which the arguments are judgedContender - the person who accepts the debate.
Pro does not understand this debate

Well according to what i previously said in my debate "Debates are meant to be won", the main goal in a debate is to win. In this case Pro has to look like he actually does not understand the debate. But the fact that he acts in this way proves that he is acting motivated by the final reward, which is victory. In fact, the correct way to "not to understand this debate" is actually to say "I don't understand this debate" because defending "Pro does not understand this debate" would be making yourself lose, thus being more convincing for the voters that you actually don't understand the point (The problem is that, once they notice you lost and because of that you should win, it's too late, and well, making you win would again make them want you to lose and so on) In a way, you win this debate by losing. Did you understand?