BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Warming Exists (2)

I am doing this topic again, for a longer voting period and to try some features of the site. Global Warming: the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century[1] The graph at [2] shows that the Earth is warming. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [3] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Also, some other greenhouse gases are increasing too. The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming Exists (2)

"higher temperatures will promote tree growth, certainly in places which continue to receive adequate precipitation. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can fertilize trees, provided that other nutrients and water are available. " As I said on the last debate, co2 sure is needed for plants, which is called "photosynthesis", which produces oxygen. [1] How ever, now that deforestation is happening (Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852)[2], less co2 is being removed by plants, while more and more co2 is produced. So less plants+more pollution=more co2=warmer Earth. "Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, higher than now." After the plants got here, they turned most of co2 into oxygen using photosynthesis. "the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of the earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life would actually prefer warmer conditions." You are admitting that temperatures are rising! "CO2 significantly increasing the temperatures" now you are just trying to say global warming is good and no longer trying to disprove global warming. "over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass - almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases. When satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year." Dr. William Happer of the George C. Marshall Institute said "As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread - like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. , many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels." Again, plants get co2 and make it oxygen. [1] We then breathe the oxygen and turn it into co2. This is a balanced system. Now with the co2 levels increasing due to use of fossil fuels, this system is now unbalanced and dangerous. So now, con is trying to say that global warming exists, (He said "CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures") but is good, however, he is supposed to DISprove global warming, so I urge a pro vote as he is off topic. [1]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming Exists (2)

To your point on deforestation, Douglas Southgate and Brent Sohngen with the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economies at Ohio State University said in an article, "higher temperatures will promote tree growth, certainly in places which continue to receive adequate precipitation." They also said,"higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can fertilize trees, provided that other nutrients and water are available. It is hardly surprising that a recent survey of available studies points to a recent acceleration of tree growth globally. Now to plants, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change said that "when the atmosphere's temperature and CO2 concentration rise together, the vast majority of earth's plants would likely not feel a need to migrate towards cooler regions of the globe... the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of the earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life would actually prefer warmer conditions. Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA found that "over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass - almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases. When satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year." Dr. William Happer of the George C. Marshall Institute said "As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread - like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels." As you can see I have clearly provided information by experts that show that CO2 levels that are high actually help plants and trees grow and produces more greenery and prevents desertification. This is why I urge for a Con ballot.
Global Warming Exists (2)

"But the temperature records say it isn't happening." False. Look at the graph at [1]. "CO2 is a harmless gas that promotes plant growth and reduces desertification. " Co2 is a part of photosynthesis. Plants gather CO2 and turns it into oxygen. [2] It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests"between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet"have now been destroyed. Deforestation is a contributor to global warming. [3] Now that plants have been reduced, less CO2 is being removed. Plus, CO2 levels are going up and methane is going up too. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [4] The major source of methane is extraction from geological deposits known as natural gas fields, with coal seam gas extraction becoming a major source. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [5] Plus, you cited Ian Plimer, who is not an accurate source. "Ian R. Plimer (born February 12, 1946), a mining geologist, mining company director and anthropogenic global warming denier with no evident expertise in climate science In 2011 he wrote the 'anti-warmist manual' which reviewers found to be full of scientific errors, containing flawed and undocumented diagrams, and sloppily edited Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism." [6] "There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels" Well, see this: (if you can't see this go to youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8) http://www.youtube.com... "In fact, according to 30,000 measuring stations around the world confirm a trend that temperatures have not risen since 1997. In a study by Berkeley, it confirmed that marine atmosphere shows no warming." This has no citation, no links to any proof, etc. See [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.sourcewatch.org...
Marijuana Legalization

My humble greetings to my fellow opponent. General public, the first question we need to ask ourselves is what are the hazards of using marijuana? Some of the common discomforts found when using marijuana include dry mouth, swollen eyelids, bloodshot eyes, loss of coordination and an accelerated heart rate. Short-term Hazards include: Anxiety and paranoia Impaired memory Difficulty in thinking Learning difficulties Lack of attention and focus Poor driving skills Long-Term Hazards Include: Respiratory problems Heightened risk of infections, especially the lungs Poor short-term recall Inability to shift attention normally Inability to understand complex information An increased risk of developing lung, head and neck cancers Lack of motivation Decreased sperm count in men Irregular menstruation in women Clearly one can see the imminent danger of marijuana. Now general public if the short term hazards include "poor driving skills", how many innocent people's lives are at stake when driving on the road? And how many have fallen prey on the road due to someone having smoked marijuana? However general public, if marijuana is legalized, how many school children wouldn't have access to it. Now my fellow opponent will talk about a age limit being implemented to prohibit school children from using it, but hasn't the same thing been done to alcohol but still scholars access alcohol even if there is a age limit. Now since marijuana causes learning difficulties, if scholars have access to it, wouldn't a number of learners perform poorly at school and take into consideration that if this happens, the economy will crumble due to a poor productivity. Furthermore, my opponent speaks about job creation if marijuana is legalized. This is simply tedious to mention, because such an industry poses a threat to society as we will have a lot of people accessing it easily and a lot of people will eventually become addicts. Clearly on can see that at the end of the day, preventing people from using marijuana is of great benefit to them and to society. After all, "prevention" is better then "cure".
Marijuana Legalization

I've never used this website before so if someone could please be so kind as to educate me on basic procedure I would greatly appreciate it. To begin, marijuana was legalized for recreational use on November 6, 2012 in Colorado and Washington. I believe this is a huge step in the right direction. Marijuana prohibition has been going on for far too long and the negative side effects associated with it have been devastating. Millions locked up for a victim-less crime. Lives ruined. Families separated. The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and we now see the cheapest, most potent, most readily available supply of drugs this nation has ever seen. Drug trade is a booming industry and under the current system, the only people benefiting are those at the top of criminal enterprises. Its time to put people back to work. Legalizing cannabis (and hemp) would create a whole new industry. Millions of new jobs across the country. Legalizing marijuana would do a better job of keeping it out of the hands of children than the current system. Drug dealers don't ID.
Marijuana Legalization

It is clear that my opponent doesn't want to accept or let my say turns the blind eye to the threat a marijuana industry poses to society. My opponent vehemently denies the short term and long term hazards of smoking marijuana, and this is expected of him. However, a recent study by Madeline Meier, a post doctoral researcher of Duke University, shows th prolonged marijuana use by teenagers can be harmful to the developing brain, to the extent of lowering adulthood IQ's by almost ten points on average. Now take this into account and imagine if marijuana was legalized how many people would become a victim of this study. My fellow opponent might say people have access to it, but this only refers to a certain number of people who use it illegally. and I acknowledge that, but lets look at the number of people are not using because of it being illegal. Doesn't my opponent see that with it being illegal we are acting in the best interests of society. Furthermore I cannot seem to avoid the fact that my opponent talks about "taking drugs off the streets and getting it out of the hands of our youth sounds like more of a benefit to society to him", but taking drugs out the hands of the youth is just like taking drugs out of the shops, Doesn't that sound that sound more beneficial to him? On the contrary my opponent has focused only on the industry marijuana if legalized would give birth to, and this is not enough in order to tell us why Marijuana should be legalized, because need not I reiterate that short term and long term hazards of smoking marijuana are fatal, and these hazards of smoking marijuana prove that it cannot be legalized, because we are saving the lives of many. Let us continue in preventing many from using it, and left us stand together to build a drug free society.
Marijuana Legalization

It is clear now my opponent is backpedaling. After I debunked all the myths he regurgitated, one half of his remaining arguments were about the dangers associated with people with mental disorders using marijuana. While I don't doubt this is a serious concern and while I agree more research should be done in this area, this argument centers around a portion of the population that is <<1%. Additionally, even if this number was 50% decriminalization would still be a better system than we have now because we would be able to screen who gets marijuana. A drug dealer would sell weed to anyone. If marijuana was decriminalized we could structure the legislation about who can be sold to however we want. As for your warning not to "compare places where legalization and decriminalization strategies have been implemented in the past, to the places where its not subject matter is not legalized.", I never said things would work out exactly like they have in other places, but if we are looking for the closest model to what would happen if marijuana were legalized here, I would say the best place to look would be other societies. Also, you say, "the same industry that poses a threat to society" in reference to the legal cannabis industry. Can you elaborate on this "threat"? Taking drugs off the streets and getting it out of the hands of our youth sounds like more of a benefit to society to me. Less drug related violence, less money for criminal enterprises, less access to the drug for anyone under the age of 21. Why don't you want these things?
Marijuana Legalization

Greetings be again to my fellow opponent. I would like to warn my opponent not to compare places where legalization and decriminalization strategies have been implemented in the past, to the places where its not subject matter is not legalized. Now my opponent might say its okay to compare a "country" to a "country", but doing this would be like comparing an apple to a pear since they both "fruits," something I find it tedious. Noting with satisfaction that my opponent talks about what he has achieved under the influence of marijuana in order to prove my point wrong. This is totally unacceptable because I would have done the same thing if I was proposing the motion at hand, and this clearly proves that my opponent is sucking all that he mentioned out his thumb. And furthermore I see my opponent is spending to much time on denying the imminent danger of smoking marijuana and focuses on the same story of the industry marijuana would give birth to, take note general public the same industry that poses a threat to society. I also acknowledge my opponents statement on the fact that "we will never prevent an entire country from using drugs", but by not legalizing marijuana prevents at least many from using it, who could've fell under the "entire" my opponent fondly speaks of. However, my opponent fails to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself. General public, we need to realise that the consequences of smoking marijuana are bad, as it poses a threat to society, and it out weighs the pros of smoking marijuana. Furthermore, the use of Marijuana can cause a condition called drug-induced psychosis. This usually passes after a few days. However, if someone has a predisposition to a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, marijuana may trigger the first episode of an ongoing condition such as schizophrenia. There is increasing evidence that regular marijuana use precedes and even causes higher rates of psychotic illness. At the same time, many people with schizophrenia have not used marijuana. But "How does Marijuana affect someone with a psychotic illness?" Marijuana generally makes psychotic symptoms worse and lowers the chances of recovery from a psychotic episode. People with a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, who use it experience more hallucinations, delusions and other symptoms; they have a higher rate of hospitalisation for psychosis, treatment is generally less effective and recovery more difficult. And the consequences can be so serious for the person"s health that it is best to avoid drugs such as Marijuana completely. People at higher risk of developing a psychotic illness " if they have other family members with the illness, for example " should also avoid using marijuana It can be helpful to look at other, healthier ways of relaxing and socialising as an alternative. And the above-mentioned is one of the many consequences of smoking marijuana, thus proving that by not legalizing it we are saving the lives of many.
Non-practicing Christians should not practice Christmas

To start out, I would like to point out that my opponent dropped all of my points and let my rebuttals stand, so therefore I win all the points he dropped, as he seems to agree with my arguments or just accepts that my view is more backed up or some other reason. Also, my opponent has still not provided a source, and doesn't even put up a real example of this happening. .as the viewers and myself might be questioning-what the heck are you reffering to? This never happens? Also, my opponent states that Christmas is being destoyed by people who only celebrate it for gifts, and solely blames this, (discriminately,) on atheist liberals. I would like to call out opinion, discrimination, and flaming on this half as you are claiming a specific politicial party is corrupting a seperate religions holiday. And all my arguments previously address this; argument extended. Also, my opponent states that, "they have taken a traditional holiday that was set aside for members of the Christian faith. .. " which directly violates main beilefs of Christian culture. It is to my knowledge, that god created man and woman out of his own image, and all of us are decended from those two original beings, who were created from god, so we are all decended from god. And if we're related to god, who is made out as a peaceful, loving, fair, just ruler, then why would he discriminate other religious faiths for celebrating a religious holiday? Even though they might not believe, maybe they should at least see the glory of Jesus and might even become Christian, as they might of never been informed about what Christianity is truly like. ..
Non-practicing Christians should not practice Christmas

You said that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, it is, I fully agree with that. But, you have people that really don't care about that, or may not even know that that is why we celebrate Christmas in the first place. What this is all about is that Christmas is being destroyed by people that celebrate it, not even knowing why other than jimmy wants an iPod. They've taken a traditional holiday that was set aside for the members of the Christian faith to get together and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and thank god for all of our blessings. By they I mean of course the atheist liberals.
Non-practicing Christians should not practice Christmas

Alright, where to begin. Lets start with the fact that when you strongly, and firmly believe in something, you tend to really appreciate it and support. Pretend that you are a Christian, you've just walked into a Christmas party. At the Christmas parties that you're used to there is singing of carols, traditional foods, and an unwrapping of meaningful, thoughtful presents. But this one is different. There's Christmas music on the stereo, but only they wanted it to seem "festive". They have ordered KFC for dinner. Finally the gifts, still a flop. Everyone gives each other gift cards. You just went to the worst Christmas party ever, and know that only true practicing Christians should do Christmas.
Non-practicing Christians should not practice Christmas

I am Catholic and have seen in the past few years, that there are many people that I know aren't Christian, practicing the joyous holiday of Christmas. I would point the blame solely on commercialism but I can do that because I've seen plenty of liberal atheists playing the X-Mas card for the month of December. I feel that it is a holiday like all the other religions' holidays, and since it is you should only practice it if you are Christian.
Creation(Pro) vs. Evolution(Con)

READ ALL!!! I don't care about this voting system, I find it quite stupid. A creationist will vote for me, an evolutionist will vote for you. Hopefully this goes as planned. I just want to say, I am not against science. I actually happen to enjoy science. Science is actually one of my favorite subjects. Why? Because I find it interesting. Beer is often sold in football games, beer has NOTHING to do with football, it doesn't make you buff or stronger. It is similar to Evolution. Evolution is found in science textbooks, but have nothing to do with science. You call it science and put it in a science textbook, I call it a fairy tale and put it in the garbage. Now, if you have evidence for evolution, I would be more than happy to see it. The English language comes from Latin, the word "Universe" is two separate words in latin, "uni-" being single or one, and "-verse" being spoken sentence, and God said, "Let there be...." and here we are! There are plenty of more pieces proofing existence of God, and sources that debunk Evolution, ask any questions you want, I will answer them. This is important, I really want you to understand everything about the bible, and God, and why Evolution is flase.
Creation(Pro) vs. Evolution(Con)

Here you have it friends, a winner! I encourage all of you guys reading this to click on his profile, and read up his debates. He is the definition of a old hag thirsting for attention as he continuously disses people for NO reason. I mean he is 57 years old. GROW UP!!! Do you honestly think you are in charge of this website, stating "you play by my rules"? He's a fool, a cock sucker, an old, poor man. Read his first argument. "This debate is an easy, in bridge terms, a laydown." HE QUIT!!! Who quits a debate? At least quit by refuting my points, I won, I made him speechless. He didn't quit because he takes music serious, you quit because you simply LOST. Yeah, I get it your old and you like old rock bands. But seriously you seriously have something wrong in your brain, imagine a 57 year old man saying, " teeny tiny sad sack of a puking plastic vomit yodeling grunge country opera twang of a piano wire brain fried on baked water" or, "teeny bopper" or I don't know this?? "tiddlywinks" Who is this guy? Delete your account and get a job, I'm done with this fool. And read my bio, It specifically says I listen to Eminem, he's the OG, and he is MUCH better than your "original" bands....... combine. See ya fool, I don't expect you to reply, because you are a wimp.